The Power That They Crave
In recent interviews with television news commentators, Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama has held himself out as, among other things, a constitutional law professor.
Strange it is, though, that Obama has not mentioned the U.
S.
Constitution in any of his remarks made during the early debates held between the numerous Democratic presidential candidates, nor during the subsequent debates held with Senator Hillary Clinton.
The only two candidates, Republican or Democrat, who respectfully mentioned the Constitution during the various debates were Representatives Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul, and their comments were less-than-appreciated, and essentially ignored, by their presidential rivals.
While the U.
S.
Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and the basic rule book by which the federal government is supposed to operate, Obama's assertion that he has professionally studied, and taught, the principles of U.
S.
Constitutional law is, frankly, disconcerting when he makes it appear, before the American electorate, that there are no real existing constitutional problems in the federal government.
Obama glibly talks about his pledge to end the Iraq War, and to bring home the 140,000+ GI's home from the Middle East, but he obviously sees no problem with a standing U.
S.
President wielding a presumed Article 2 power to unilaterally create a war with a foreign nation through a police action unsanctioned by Congress and the United Nations.
Through his disturbing nonchalance, Obama conveys that there is no constitutional problem with a U.
S.
President unilaterally establishing agreements, tantamount to treaties (the second highest form of law) between the United States and foreign nations, called status of forces agreements.
Further, Mr.
Obama obviously sees no problem with a President unilaterally, by tradition and Supreme Court approbation, creating statutory law through decreeing executive orders.
Obama's knowledge of legislative and presidential history must, also, be somewhat insufficient when he has failed to recall, and condemn, the infamous executive order of Franklin D.
Roosevelt, which interned the Japanese-Americans during World War II, and, of course, the infamous order by Abraham Lincoln suspending the writ of habeas corpus, during the American Civil War.
As I pointed out in a previous essay concerning Obama, the first black presidential nominee in American history is a totally enigmatic political package, an unknown and highly unpredictable quantity.
I seriously doubt that he just got out of bed one morning, after serving as senator for a year-or-so, and decided while shaving that he was going to run for President.
He probably didn't have a dream either, in the likeness of Dr.
Martin Luther King, of becoming the first black President.
No, I'll wager that he, instead, received several calls one day from certain powerful and wealthy moguls in the Democratic Party, or perhaps from clandestine power-broker benefactors in the, then, existing Legislative Branch, to announce the plausibility of him becoming a presidential contender, and of sure financial backing.
His over-praised ability to orate, acclaimed by both sensational pundits and peer politicians, is certainly about as distinguished as were the words of the 19th Century's Frederick Douglas' persuasive and influential to the mind of Abraham Lincoln, as history details that Lincoln was not concerned half-as-much about ending slavery as he was about ending constitutionally-based federalism.
While Obama, of Illinois, is directly, and frequently, compared to Abraham Lincoln, few of the American electorate realize that Lincoln was, essentially, a dictator during his reign as President, as evidenced by what he did to disparage the U.
S.
Constitution.
And I doubt that Obama writes his own speeches, as Lincoln so famously did.
Some highly-paid speechwriter probably writes the words that make Obama sing so outstandingly.
This elusive superficiality is, today, the common characteristic of federal politicians that creates such a problem in such a heterogeneous media-controlled electorate; for an electronic image of a presidential candidate is as publicly identifiable, and understandable, as a wag-the-dog war.
Remember the irrepressible Max Headroom? Well, I'll bet that with the state-of-the-art computer imagery available today, and with the surreptitious cooperation of American media's fifth-column, a fictional computer-generated presidential candidate could be presented to the American public with overwhelming acceptance.
There's no-telling what Barack Obama will do, if elected in November.
Remember Dubya's dad and his "read my lips" routine about taxes? Well, you can never be sure when a post-modern newly-elected President will go-back on, or simply negate, his campaign promises, but you can bet your last dollar that sometime during his term of office he will do it.
Obama has already gone back on a campaign finance promise that he made to the American voters, and I pretty well know what Obama won't do, if elected.
And that is to challenge the unconstitutional processes and powers which are part-and-parcel with the unscrupulous Office of the U.
S.
President.
Obama, Clinton, Edwards, and the other candidates who began campaigning for the 2008 Democratic nomination, began their televised multi-multi-million dollar public entertainment programming (campaigns?) with a fervent desire to seize that awesome "power" associated with being President.
Actor Donald Sutherland, in his portrayal of a pragmatic Speaker of the House in the short-lived television series, "Commander in Chief," said it best in a very realistic Machiavellian tone.
"It's all about power.
If a person doesn't crave the power, he shouldn't want to be in the oval office.
" Yesterday morning, I got out of bed and was suddenly struck with a tragic realization that sickened me to the heart.
This American republic, of 2008, is not the same nation into which I was born in 1951.
In 1951, the machinery of federal conspiracy had been working its evil for nearly 40-years, and I suppose that, perhaps, a similar realization had also struck, with great impact in 1917, the minds of few informed citizens after the passage, in 1913, of the Federal Reserve Act and the alleged ratification of the 16th Amendment.
In the sacred name of the federalism established by the Framers, what state legislature, comprised of rationally-minded lawmakers, would have ratified, in 1913, a constitutional amendment allowing the federal government to directly tax a citizen's income, and to subvert the intent of the taxation clause in Article 1 of the U.
S.
Constitution? What rational citizen would have contacted her state representatives, during that time, to endorse such an amendment? This is why I sincerely believe that the 16th Amendment was fraudulently ratified, and that the Federal Reserve Act was in direct contraventon of the constitutional duties of coining money and determining its value placed upon Congress by the Founding Fathers.
Ask any hundred U.
S.
citizens today if they approve of the federal income tax, the behemoth Internal Revenue Service, and the devaluation of the U.
S.
dollar by a group of private bankers, and you will invariably get ninety who disapprove, and, perhaps, ten-or-less who do.
The true legislative histories of the 16th Amendment, and the Federal Reserve Act, are filled with illicit political intrigues exuding from the role Secretary of State Philander Knox played in sending the text of the proposed amendment to the state legislatures for ratification, and in his manipulation of Congress in the passage of the FED.
More than a few constitutional historians believe that a text omitting specific mention of the direct taxation of a citizen's income was deliberately sent to the legislatures by Knox.
If this is so, the 16th Amendment, the key to unlimited federal revenue, exorbitant federal spending, and an unbalanced federal budget, is illegal on its face.
Of course, who is there to boldly challenge the legality of the 16th Amendment, the Federal Reserve Act, the unconstitutional powers exercised by the Executive Branch, and the gall of the runaway Congresses which have usurped the constitutional mandate of Article 1, Section 8's necessary and proper clause, stipulating that only "essential" and "proper" laws should be passed by the Legislative Branch? Strange it is that the U.
S.
Supreme Court has condoned these flagrant usurpations through summarily negating Webster's definition of the word "necessary.
" Truly, the only way that proper federalism may properly thrive, under the U.
S.
Constitution, is by, and through, state sovereignty, as expressed in the 10th Amendment.
The states created the federal government, not visa-versa, and without the power of the states to control the usurpations of a ravenous federal government, a unitary federal dictatorship is the only end result, a substantial part of which is now a grave reality.
I am assured that, neither, Barack Obama, nor John McCain, will challenge the unconstitutional executive power that they both crave to wield.
And neither of the two will do anything to correct the legislative processes which are continually, and unjustly, providing the Executive Branch with increasingly destructive powers to further shred the U.
S.
Constitution.
So, for whom is there to vote, who will give true credence to the presidential oath of office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States? Sadly, there isn't anyone presently electable except two potential tyrants, and one of them will eventually occupy the White House.
Strange it is, though, that Obama has not mentioned the U.
S.
Constitution in any of his remarks made during the early debates held between the numerous Democratic presidential candidates, nor during the subsequent debates held with Senator Hillary Clinton.
The only two candidates, Republican or Democrat, who respectfully mentioned the Constitution during the various debates were Representatives Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul, and their comments were less-than-appreciated, and essentially ignored, by their presidential rivals.
While the U.
S.
Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and the basic rule book by which the federal government is supposed to operate, Obama's assertion that he has professionally studied, and taught, the principles of U.
S.
Constitutional law is, frankly, disconcerting when he makes it appear, before the American electorate, that there are no real existing constitutional problems in the federal government.
Obama glibly talks about his pledge to end the Iraq War, and to bring home the 140,000+ GI's home from the Middle East, but he obviously sees no problem with a standing U.
S.
President wielding a presumed Article 2 power to unilaterally create a war with a foreign nation through a police action unsanctioned by Congress and the United Nations.
Through his disturbing nonchalance, Obama conveys that there is no constitutional problem with a U.
S.
President unilaterally establishing agreements, tantamount to treaties (the second highest form of law) between the United States and foreign nations, called status of forces agreements.
Further, Mr.
Obama obviously sees no problem with a President unilaterally, by tradition and Supreme Court approbation, creating statutory law through decreeing executive orders.
Obama's knowledge of legislative and presidential history must, also, be somewhat insufficient when he has failed to recall, and condemn, the infamous executive order of Franklin D.
Roosevelt, which interned the Japanese-Americans during World War II, and, of course, the infamous order by Abraham Lincoln suspending the writ of habeas corpus, during the American Civil War.
As I pointed out in a previous essay concerning Obama, the first black presidential nominee in American history is a totally enigmatic political package, an unknown and highly unpredictable quantity.
I seriously doubt that he just got out of bed one morning, after serving as senator for a year-or-so, and decided while shaving that he was going to run for President.
He probably didn't have a dream either, in the likeness of Dr.
Martin Luther King, of becoming the first black President.
No, I'll wager that he, instead, received several calls one day from certain powerful and wealthy moguls in the Democratic Party, or perhaps from clandestine power-broker benefactors in the, then, existing Legislative Branch, to announce the plausibility of him becoming a presidential contender, and of sure financial backing.
His over-praised ability to orate, acclaimed by both sensational pundits and peer politicians, is certainly about as distinguished as were the words of the 19th Century's Frederick Douglas' persuasive and influential to the mind of Abraham Lincoln, as history details that Lincoln was not concerned half-as-much about ending slavery as he was about ending constitutionally-based federalism.
While Obama, of Illinois, is directly, and frequently, compared to Abraham Lincoln, few of the American electorate realize that Lincoln was, essentially, a dictator during his reign as President, as evidenced by what he did to disparage the U.
S.
Constitution.
And I doubt that Obama writes his own speeches, as Lincoln so famously did.
Some highly-paid speechwriter probably writes the words that make Obama sing so outstandingly.
This elusive superficiality is, today, the common characteristic of federal politicians that creates such a problem in such a heterogeneous media-controlled electorate; for an electronic image of a presidential candidate is as publicly identifiable, and understandable, as a wag-the-dog war.
Remember the irrepressible Max Headroom? Well, I'll bet that with the state-of-the-art computer imagery available today, and with the surreptitious cooperation of American media's fifth-column, a fictional computer-generated presidential candidate could be presented to the American public with overwhelming acceptance.
There's no-telling what Barack Obama will do, if elected in November.
Remember Dubya's dad and his "read my lips" routine about taxes? Well, you can never be sure when a post-modern newly-elected President will go-back on, or simply negate, his campaign promises, but you can bet your last dollar that sometime during his term of office he will do it.
Obama has already gone back on a campaign finance promise that he made to the American voters, and I pretty well know what Obama won't do, if elected.
And that is to challenge the unconstitutional processes and powers which are part-and-parcel with the unscrupulous Office of the U.
S.
President.
Obama, Clinton, Edwards, and the other candidates who began campaigning for the 2008 Democratic nomination, began their televised multi-multi-million dollar public entertainment programming (campaigns?) with a fervent desire to seize that awesome "power" associated with being President.
Actor Donald Sutherland, in his portrayal of a pragmatic Speaker of the House in the short-lived television series, "Commander in Chief," said it best in a very realistic Machiavellian tone.
"It's all about power.
If a person doesn't crave the power, he shouldn't want to be in the oval office.
" Yesterday morning, I got out of bed and was suddenly struck with a tragic realization that sickened me to the heart.
This American republic, of 2008, is not the same nation into which I was born in 1951.
In 1951, the machinery of federal conspiracy had been working its evil for nearly 40-years, and I suppose that, perhaps, a similar realization had also struck, with great impact in 1917, the minds of few informed citizens after the passage, in 1913, of the Federal Reserve Act and the alleged ratification of the 16th Amendment.
In the sacred name of the federalism established by the Framers, what state legislature, comprised of rationally-minded lawmakers, would have ratified, in 1913, a constitutional amendment allowing the federal government to directly tax a citizen's income, and to subvert the intent of the taxation clause in Article 1 of the U.
S.
Constitution? What rational citizen would have contacted her state representatives, during that time, to endorse such an amendment? This is why I sincerely believe that the 16th Amendment was fraudulently ratified, and that the Federal Reserve Act was in direct contraventon of the constitutional duties of coining money and determining its value placed upon Congress by the Founding Fathers.
Ask any hundred U.
S.
citizens today if they approve of the federal income tax, the behemoth Internal Revenue Service, and the devaluation of the U.
S.
dollar by a group of private bankers, and you will invariably get ninety who disapprove, and, perhaps, ten-or-less who do.
The true legislative histories of the 16th Amendment, and the Federal Reserve Act, are filled with illicit political intrigues exuding from the role Secretary of State Philander Knox played in sending the text of the proposed amendment to the state legislatures for ratification, and in his manipulation of Congress in the passage of the FED.
More than a few constitutional historians believe that a text omitting specific mention of the direct taxation of a citizen's income was deliberately sent to the legislatures by Knox.
If this is so, the 16th Amendment, the key to unlimited federal revenue, exorbitant federal spending, and an unbalanced federal budget, is illegal on its face.
Of course, who is there to boldly challenge the legality of the 16th Amendment, the Federal Reserve Act, the unconstitutional powers exercised by the Executive Branch, and the gall of the runaway Congresses which have usurped the constitutional mandate of Article 1, Section 8's necessary and proper clause, stipulating that only "essential" and "proper" laws should be passed by the Legislative Branch? Strange it is that the U.
S.
Supreme Court has condoned these flagrant usurpations through summarily negating Webster's definition of the word "necessary.
" Truly, the only way that proper federalism may properly thrive, under the U.
S.
Constitution, is by, and through, state sovereignty, as expressed in the 10th Amendment.
The states created the federal government, not visa-versa, and without the power of the states to control the usurpations of a ravenous federal government, a unitary federal dictatorship is the only end result, a substantial part of which is now a grave reality.
I am assured that, neither, Barack Obama, nor John McCain, will challenge the unconstitutional executive power that they both crave to wield.
And neither of the two will do anything to correct the legislative processes which are continually, and unjustly, providing the Executive Branch with increasingly destructive powers to further shred the U.
S.
Constitution.
So, for whom is there to vote, who will give true credence to the presidential oath of office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States? Sadly, there isn't anyone presently electable except two potential tyrants, and one of them will eventually occupy the White House.