Posted on 01/03/2014 9:02:39 AM PST by Squawk 8888
Does America need a monarch? Ever since, according to legend, George Washington turned down the chance of becoming the new country’s king, America’s identity as a republican nation of citizen rulers has been rock solid. Indeed, nothing can stir patriotic anger more than the suggestion that the U.S. president is acting like unelected royalty. Yet even before independence, John Adams argued in favor of a “republican monarchy” of laws, lamenting, “We have so many Men of Wealth, of ambitious Spirits, of Intrigue … that incessant Factions will disturb our Peace.”
Looking at the United States, today, Adams was prescient, with the country almost evenly split between Democrats and Republicans, special interests dominant, and poisonous partisan gridlock destroying Washington, D.C. While Adams favored a republican monarch with absolute veto powers, today we need a person who can sit above politics and help strengthen our commitment to republican values. We need a king, or something like one.
---
The First Citizen would serve one 15-year term, thus ensuring that he would have to deal with at least two presidents. The First Citizen, along with his or her spouse, would represent America at all social and ceremonial meetings with foreign heads of state and would perform civic activities for all national holidays. Instead of the president, the First Citizen would pardon turkeys, welcome Super Bowl champions, open Olympics, lay wreaths at the Tomb of the Unknown Solider, light the national Christmas Tree and the like. He or she would also commemorate important national anniversaries, such as major battles, and would be the chief mourner at national tragedies or memorial services.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
......the only way to make people who are unequal in talents equal in rewards is to use governmental power to dispossess some and favor others.
Alexis de Tocqueville saw it coming:
“The sole condition which is required in order to succeed in centralizing the supreme power in a democratic community, is to love equality or to get men to believe you love it. Thus, the science of despotism, which was once so complex, is simplified, and reduced ... to a single principle.”
Get people to believe you are seeking the utopian goal of equality of all and there is no limit to the power you can amass.
http://townhall.com/columnists/patbuchanan/2013/12/31/inequality—crisis-or-scam-n1770100/page/2
"Non-partisan" is a liberal trick concept. What it really means is for anyone who stands against liberals to abandon their position in the name of "fairness" - another liberal concept. All of this is meant to impress young people, soccer moms, and government-dpendent minorities. Everyone else knows it's garbage - including Leftists. You ever - ever - hear a Leftist or liberal say THEY need to be non-partisan? LOL! Instead, they define their partisan positions AS non-partisan, and laugh as the Right tries to parse their word games.
No, everyone is partisan, and everyone discriminates, and that's good. What's bad is when people deny their positions, and then claim they have no position. That creates the world we live in today - the world of psychopathic, ahbitual, compulsive, paranoid liars.
Any king would have to be partisan as hell - and make his partisanship crystal clear - because that would be the reality anyway.
So dump the non-partisanship nonsense. What matters is what such a king would be partisan about, what he would stand for, and what he would stand against. America is unique and brilliant because the Founders decided that no king could be found who would stand for true justice, in part because no country yet had been created upon true justice. So they invented America, based on natural law and negative rights - and changed the world.
Or an emperor.
Nero..Zero.
It’s all semantics.
Its not suicide. No American wants this. It's genocide. Men with names and addresses are doing this to us deliberately.
These people envision Obama as a King.
what dolts.
Kindergarten and Rose Bowl Parades are not even non-partisan anymore.
You mentioned illegal immigration. I am talking about LEGAL IMMIGRATION. We need to reduce it drastically. We don't need more immigrants competing for jobs against 20 million unemployed/underemployed Americans.
I don’t care what color a person is, I care about their values, their loyalties and their relationship with Jesus.
Most of us subscribe to that credo, but the polticial reality is that immigrants and minorities vote two to one Democrat. Obama got 73% of the Asian vote, 93% of the black vote, and 71% of the Hispanic vote. He won 39% of the non-Hispanic white vote.
We have entered the era of the tribal politics and the non-Hispanic white tribe is getting smaller. This has electoral consequences. Ultimately, the Dems will become the permanent majority party. This means Big Government and the welfare state will just get bigger. So why are we importing hundreds of thousands of Dem voters every year?
Here’s an idea: No.
I know that’s a major problem too. I was alluding to that, often I type things which are only a fraction of what is happening in my head.
If I had my way, immigration would be shut off completely until such a time that the economy was brought to bear, and jobs and manufacturing return, and even then it would be very selective.
Part of the problem is our low birthrates. On average we’re having 1.66 kids per family vs immigrants who are far higher.
We’re our own worst enemy it would seem.
You make a good point that someone is doing this to us intentionally, the question remains, what do we do about it?
You are correct that it is genocide. Unfortunately, too high a percentage (I don’t believe that it’s near 50%) do want White genocide. It’s true in Europe, Oz...all over the world. Democrats, socialists, communists want us neutralized & neutered.
You won’t see any push for immigration (especially illegal immigration) to Asia, Africa, & the Arab countries.
The non-Hispanic white population is projected to peak in 2024, at 199.6 million, up from 197.8 million in 2012. Unlike other race or ethnic groups, however, its population is projected to slowly decrease, falling by nearly 20.6 million from 2024 to 2060.
Meanwhile, the Hispanic population would more than double, from 53.3 million in 2012 to 128.8 million in 2060. Consequently, by the end of the period, nearly one in three U.S. residents would be Hispanic, up from about one in six today.
The black population is expected to increase from 41.2 million to 61.8 million over the same period. Its share of the total population would rise slightly, from 13.1 percent in 2012 to 14.7 percent in 2060.
The Asian population is projected to more than double, from 15.9 million in 2012 to 34.4 million in 2060, with its share of nation’s total population climbing from 5.1 percent to 8.2 percent in the same period.
Among the remaining race groups, American Indians and Alaska Natives would increase by more than half from now to 2060, from 3.9 million to 6.3 million, with their share of the total population edging up from 1.2 percent to 1.5 percent. The Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander population is expected to nearly double, from 706,000 to 1.4 million. The number of people who identify themselves as being of two or more races is projected to more than triple, from 7.5 million to 26.7 million over the same period.
The U.S. is projected to become a majority-minority nation for the first time in 2043. While the non-Hispanic white population will remain the largest single group, no group will make up a majority.
All in all, minorities, now 37 percent of the U.S. population, are projected to comprise 57 percent of the population in 2060. (Minorities consist of all but the single-race, non-Hispanic white population.) The total minority population would more than double, from 116.2 million to 241.3 million over the period.
(July 2012) In the United States and other developed countries, fertility tends to drop during periods of economic decline. U.S. fertility rates fell to low levels during the Great Depression (1930s), around the time of the 1970s "oil shock," and since the onset of the recent recession in 2007. The U.S. total fertility rate (TFR) stood at 2.0 births per woman in 2009, but preliminary data from the National Center for Health Statistics show that the TFR dropped to 1.9 in 2010—well below the replacement level of 2.1. A similar decline—or leveling off—of fertility rates has been reported in Ireland, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and several other European countries.
A prolonged decline in African American and Latina fertility rates will affect the future racial and ethnic composition of the United States. The Census Bureau recently reported that over half of all U.S. infants are racial/ethnic minorities. The U.S. population is currently projected to reach "majority-minority" status (the point at which less than half of the population is non-Hispanic white) in 2042. For several decades, immigration has been the driving force behind rapid racial/ethnic change in the United States, but a sustained drop in fertility rates could slow the pace of growth of the country’s minority population.
America needs a second Revo lutionary War.
czar (n.) 1550s, from Russian tsar, from Old Slavic tsesari, from Gothic kaisar, from Greek kaisar, from Latin Caesar. First adopted by Russian emperor Ivan IV, 1547.
The spelling with cz- is against the usage of all Slavonic languages; the word was so spelt by Herberstein, Rerum Moscovit. Commentarii, 1549, the chief early source of knowledge as to Russia in Western Europe, whence it passed into the Western Languages generally; in some of these it is now old-fashioned; the usual Ger. form is now zar; French adopted tsar during the 19th c. This also became frequent in English towards the end of that century, having been adopted by the Times newspaper as the most suitable English spelling. [OED]
The Germanic form of the word also is the source of Finnish keisari, Estonian keisar. The transferred sense of "person with dictatorial powers" is first recorded 1866, American English, initially in reference to President Andrew Johnson. The fem. czarina is 1717, from Italian czarina, from Ger. Zarin, fem. of Zar "czar." The Russian fem. form is tsaritsa. His son is tsarevitch, his daughter is tsarevna.
tsar (n.) 1660s, the more correct Latinization of Russian czar, from prehistoric Slavic *tsesar, from a Germanic source, ultimately from Latin Caesar. See czar.
And
Caesar 1200, see caesarian; Old English had casere, which would have yielded modern *coser, but it was replaced in Middle English by keiser, from Norse or Low German, and later in Middle English by the French or Latin form of the name. Cæsar was used as a title of emperors down to Hadrian (138 C.E.), and also is the root of German Kaiser and Russian tsar (see czar). He competes as progenitor of words for "king" with Charlemagne (Latin Carolus), as in Lithuanian karalius, Polish krol. In U.S. slang c.1900, a sheriff was Great Seizer.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=czar&searchmode=none
As for "poisonous partisan gridlock destroying Washington, D.C.," one can only wish it would. The notion that a smoothly functioning legislation factory could be anything but inimical to human freedom is one that defies all historical evidence. Gridlock in government is not bad when the proposed direction is quite so disastrous as several currently under consideration, a national health-care takeover being one of those and amnesty for illegal aliens being another. Gridlock is an improvement on progress.
I don't see how a ceremonial figurehead addresses anything of importance in the rest of the article. And if he's more than a figurehead we have another sort of problem altogether. The English had to resort to Cromwell and the French, Robespierre, to rid themselves of activist monarchy. Things are bad enough in the U.S. without borrowing old European follies.
I agree with you. The flaw in Austin’s analysis is that he seems to have no idea how a constitutional monarchy works.
The only way to preserve freedom is to limit government power and the way to do that is to ensure that opposing forces are in play. Both the US Constitution and parliamentary monarchies (such as Canada and Australia) are very good at that. Canada’s constitution is based on “Crown vs. Parliament”, where the executive branch is dependent on the legislative branch for funding and serves at the pleasure of the elected representatives. Many of the rituals here are re-enactments of the fights in the past that gained our freedoms.
The opening of Canada’s Parliament consists of series of deliberate insults to the Queen. It begins with a re-enactment of Charles I barging into the chamber; when the Queen (or more often, her representative) approaches, the doors are slammed in her face and barred. One of her attendants (”Black Rod”) then knocks on the door, and after some back-and-forth with the Sergeant-at-Arms the doors are opened. After she reads the Speech from the Throne (analogous to the State of the Union) laying out the government’s agenda, she leaves. The first order of business is then raised and it is *always* about something that was not mentioned in the Throne Speech, a gesture to remind the Crown that Parliament calls the shots.
The only real powers that reside with the Crown are to veto legislation (something never exercised here), decide who will form a government (something that hasn’t been contentious since an election in the 1920s where it wasn’t clear who would have Parliament’s support), and to call a new election (which must be within 5 years of the previous election). The key to the whole system is that the government is only legitimate if both the Crown and the elected representatives support it.
Ultimately any system of government will only preserve our freedom if the voters are vigilant and the courts and legislators take their responsibilities seriously. That has had many lapses in both Canada and the USA.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.