0bama will leave the office of the president on Jan 20, 2017 either vertically or horizontally, his choice.
5.56mm
Why not. We have a joker as our President.
Ping!!!
“First Citizen”? Not sure about that. Sounds Jacobin.
No. Not really interesting.
The State wants to usurp God’s role. Never succeeds and always dies trying.
I love how Jesus said of dread Herod “Go tell that fox, ‘I will keep on driving out demons and healing people today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will reach my goal.’ In any case, I must press on today and tomorrow and the next day—for surely no prophet can die outside Jerusalem!”
To think He is returning to dole out what is due to every antichrist ruler that has ever lived!
Yes, I am non-partisan. It is good to be the King.
Everybody jump the Queen
Is the author kidding me? We HAVE elected a near king. The President has expanded Executive Branch power to an unprecedented degree. In many Parliamentary countries, the Prime Minister has a lot of power—but it can be kept under control by a “No Confidence” vote at any time. We’re stuck with our King for four years.
Even in tacky Sci-Fi, they realized the "First Citizen"
would be a dupe & pawn of the ruling elite ...
These people envision Obama as a King.
what dolts.
Here’s an idea: No.
America needs a second Revo lutionary War.
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.
Of course.
KC Lion, thank you for the ping.
Since perhaps Wilson we did not have a government of national interest, except maybe Reagan’s first term and a few similarly short earlier episodes. I think it is time to realize that.
Problem is, we cannot simply proclaim ourselves a monarchy. It needs to organically emerge from among aristocracy, which we don’t really have either. However, it would be good if at least there were a popular movement that recognized the need for a ruling monarch. A starting point is to realize that as soon as a single man of modest ability gets set as a monarch whose child inherits after him, all our national plagues will be resolved at once: the budget will be balanced, the foreign trade will pursue national (American national, not Chinese national) interest, the troops will come home, the infrastructure will be tended to, doctors will be self employed professionals once again, the militarized police will be a thing of the past...
Israel demanded a King. Everything went downhill from there.
We need Christ the King!
In other words, he or she would do most of the stuff that we have no objection to the president doing, leaving the president free to get up to all manner of mischief.
I'm not sure that it really works, though. Whenever Germany, say, wants a ceremonial occasion to actually mean anything, it's the Chancellor (Prime Minister) who has to be there, not the President. I wonder whether many Germans actually know who their President is.