Posted on 03/06/2008 5:18:35 AM PST by Dr.Syn
President or Potentate? March 6, 2008 During the Democrat’s presidential debate in Ohio, it struck me that you have to be an expert in forensic linguistics to understand what Hillary Clinton is really saying. It is more than apparent that Hillary long ago crossed the line from the self-actualization of ideas into the cult of personality...if there was ever a line to be crossed. And the implications are frightening. Let’s start with the premise that Hillary is running for the office of president and not potentate. Let’s expand on that premise by remembering what powers the Constitution granted to the office of the president. First and foremost among these powers is the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia”. Next, the President is Constitutionally empowered to: “grant Reprieves and Pardons”; “with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties”; “appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States”; “fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate” and “give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient”. And now we get to Hillary’s understanding of the presidency as evidenced by her own words at the Ohio debate: “I would cover (healthcare) nearly everybody”; “I would limit the amount of money that anyone ever has to pay for a premium”; I do provide a mandate for children”; I will renegotiate NAFTA”; “And I will release my tax returns” (at least it is in her prerogative to do this but don’t hold your breath). Two thoughts come to mind:
Are all of these “I will do this” and “I will give that” and “I will do everything” just careless use of the language from a person who is not known to be careless with words? Or are they a window into the true level of Hillary’s megalomania? President James Madison had it correct when he said, “I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation”. Since Hillary has never been known to be a reckless wordsmith...I’m more in fear of a “gradual...encroachment” than I am of sloppy grammar. Could it be that President Dwight D. Eisenhower foresaw the likes of Hillary when he warned that, “Every step we take towards making the State the Caretaker of our lives, by that much we move toward making the State our Master"? Only in this case, there is no blurring the lines between Hillary and the State. She is talking as the State and wants to be your caretaker. But at what price? President Reagan once bravely reminded the American people that government, “is our servant, beholden to us” and not our benefactor. In her use of language, Hillary makes it a certainty that she would gladly accept the American people “trading a little liberty for security” but that is not her decision to make. We are electing a President, not a Potentate. As Patrick Henry reminded us, “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” And “dominating our lives and interests” is exactly what Hillary is promising to do.
|
On target.
I read the headline as 'Prostitute or Potentate'
That would be for Congressmen.........
Better yet!
Not necessarily, but it will be blasphemous, whatever the alleged religious source.
My husband likes to contrast Hillary Clinton with Eva Peron. The more I see, the more I think he may have something.
That is what the dems are trying to decide at the moment.
Republicans should take care to refer to Hillary as "Mrs. Clinton" (or, perhaps, "Senator Clinton").
Referring to her by her first name makes things clearer for the listener, but it also permits the listener to mentally put space between Mrs. Clinton and ex-President Clinton.
The name Clinton should be used at all times. Even if doing so makes it difficult for the speaker or for the listener.
She says she's going to create "millions of green jobs" installing solar panels and mulching The Planet™ and stuff. What's this, a huge FDR-like public works program? With millions of employees? How many times has Clinton said she will "set aside [umpty] billion dollars to make the Sun shine" or "create a fund" to make the birds sing? She talks as if being President means she will have infinite money to spend lavishing sugar-coated pablum to her supporters in any way she wants. |
Funny you should say that this morning, last night I dreamed that his cabinet was made up of muslims and woke up suddenly in a cold sweat.
As Thomas Jefferson said, "I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious".
Hillary Clinton:"I have a million ideas. The country can't afford them all."
And you ideas aren't Constitutional either ya hag. And the Roberts' Court, aka SCOTUS, won't let you get away with them. Your (the RATS) days of using abusing the Commerce Clause for every hair brained commie scheme are over. Just ask Di-Fi, she's still ticked at the dead and buried Chief Justice Rehnquist.
She says she’s going to create “millions of green jobs” installing solar panels and mulching The Planet™ and stuff. What’s this, a huge FDR-like public works program? With millions of employees?
There are millions of college students with degrees or, at least, courses in land use planning (Environmental Studies). They have discovered that working for either small scale or corporate organic farming is not the way to make any money. This is a direct pander for their vote. I am positive that at least 2/3rds of these jobs will be on the order of *inspectors* who will be tasked with finding violations of of various EPA/Dept. of Ag rules.
The Greens are already complaining that high corn prices are “restricting the number of organic growers”. They employ armies of inspectors and extract all sorts of certification fees from present organic growers who belong to their co-ops.This is a way to mop up the excess ag nannies being turned out by the universities.
People appear to believe that a POTUS is a king with magical and sweeping powers. Most would vote to give any donk POTUS those powers.
We must try to keep a viable number of conservatives in Congress and at the state level.
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.
It gets worse. Much worse. In the last debate, Clinton said she would "invest in manufacturing." Really? Where, in the government factories?