In a recent interview with Univision U.S. President Obama (again) informed the public that America is not a monarchy and that he is not a king. You'd think the oldest major republic in the world would not have to be constantly reminded of that fact. In this case it was the President making excuses for failing to deliver on a campaign promise to "reform immigration" during his first year in office (Univision is the main Spanish-language American media outlet). Again, he equated monarchy with tyranny but the excuse doesn't hold water Mr. President. In your first year in office your party had control of the entire government; the House, the Senate and the Presidency so, king or not, you could do pretty much whatever you pleased. In fact, in such a position, the President actually had far, far more power than all but a handful of the actual monarchs left in the world. However, if there is one thing the Republicans seem to agree with President Obama on (and it may be the only thing at this point) it is that monarchy is bad. Senator Rick Santorum (again) criticized Obama by comparing him to King George III (a terrible insult to the late king), Mitt Romney has done the same (poor King George) and Ron Paul never passes up an opportunity to pour scorn on the late Shah of Iran (while acting like the current regime is a bunch of innocent victims). So, perhaps we can at least take some small comfort in the fact that both major parties in the U.S. in spite of all the time that has passed since 1776 are still haunted by memories of monarchy. If this lot is so against it, it's bound to be a good thing right?
Obama, Romney, Santorium....i think the denizens of this happy republic may at last find the President that they truly deserve.
ReplyDeleteWhat a stupid and uneducated vituperation come out from the mouth of a total liberal jerk!!
ReplyDeleteThis kind of remark stands at the same level as the racial slanders in Malaysia said every now and then by some idiotic UMNO officals, or the religious slanders in Egypt or Pakistan said by some fanatical schmucks!.
Bigots apparently are what modern democracy produces, yet they accused us as bigots; true hypocritical flocks these liberals are!
"In a republic, every people gets the government it deserves." Joseph de Maistre.
ReplyDeleteAs you well know.
While I am not a Republican (in Either sense of the word) I am most certainly not a Liberal, Pansy Ass, Marxist Loving, America Hating, Monarchy Hating, Looter of Nations Wealth like Ubama is.
ReplyDeleteThe Man isn't like a Monarch, a Monarch is charged with the protection and well being of his country.
Ubama is a Ceausescu-Lite, someone who is out to suck as much of the Nations wealth out of it, and give it to him, his Friends, and the Voting Block who have been bribed into Voting for him. A Looter of the Highest Order!
A Monarch is a Servant to his People, to their well being, The Supreme Soviet Ubama is a Servant only to himself, and the well being of his cronies.
Why is it that these Americans always pick on George III? It irritates me to no end. Let me guess: he is viewed as some tyrant who taxed the poor colonists to no end and declared war on the colonists who wanted to defend their land and for freedom and therefore all kings are bad?
ReplyDeleteIt is jealousy, Le Petit Prince. These Presidents, particularly those of the larger republics, have deep monarchical cravings, they long to be reverred as Sovereigns, to exercise the powers that they imagine a King should have. When faced with the realities of their office, and the temporary nature of their power, they must lash out at the very people whom they secretly yearn to be.
DeleteDr. Gary North often weighs in on the issue come July 4. His latest: Tricked on the Fourth of July.
DeleteA good read and very true. Many historians have had to admit that the colonies "prospered by the neglect of London" yet they cheer the replacement of a remote and largely disinterested government with an immediate and meddling one. Go figure.
DeleteI don't celebrate July 4 either (I celebrate March 2) but I often say it is the day Americans shoot off fireworks (if they live in an area where the state allows them), hold a barbeque (provided their grill is the state mandated proper distance from the house) cooking state-approved meat, if they have enough money after paying their immense local-state-federal taxes in their home built to government standards after obtaining the proper permit on land they must continue to pay the state for in order to use (via property taxes) all to celebrate glorious independence from that horrible King in London. Yeah...
Le Petit Prince, yes. That is what we're all taught in schools, public, private, or Catholic in this country.
ReplyDeleteThat's part of why my wife and I homeschool our children.
I am a true Republican by it's strict definition. I've lived abroad and can respect other Nation's heritage and culture, BUT in the United States of America we are factional with a dizzying array of interests that collide and so the USA constantly morphs into new beginnings that so far seams to never end. Ofcourse, we're just a juvinile Society experiment, we are, BUT I've been a strong critic of President Obama and am pleased that he would prefer that the USA remains a Constitutional Republic, because all that a democracy truly is, is 5 wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner. In a Constitutional Republic we can all politically collide very, very hard AND be very, very rude to each other, we can flip the Nation upside down too, we can create a State of damn near Anarchy, BUT, when a Nation remains a Constitutional Republic, well, we have to all respect each others elbow space then and I must say, so far so good, with exception to the Civil War ofcourse! LOL...
ReplyDeleteAmericans will politically fight HARD to keep their inalienable rights, they will AND REAL Republican's don't have to win the Presidency to sustain this Constitutional Republic either! We're gonna take the Senate in 2012 and just reassurt checks and balances then! LOL...
I doubt a “Real Republican” will win. The party wants Romney. Gingritch and Santorum would both be as spend happy as Obama and just change the focus on some of the things money is spent on.
ReplyDeleteThe main problem with Republicanism is that no one really owns anything and no one is accountable for the Money they spend, which isn’t even their own. This is a common criticism of Socialism, but the entire USA has always run off Taxes extracted from “The people” and all Republics always operate on social divisions being created and competing. At least in monarchy the King can own his throne and finance himself with his own lands. He also has a personal vested stake in the future of his Kingdom which no president has ever had.
That, and the King is not beholden to some political voter block and to a party to which he must slavishly serve.
Whoever is the new President in 2012, he will still be a politician and thus will be someone who wanted power and made deals to get it.
Sir, I know Ron Paul has an issue with the American role in the 1953 restoration. But does he really pick on the Shah himself?
ReplyDeleteIf you consider calling him a 'brutal tyrant' and such picking on then, yes he does. However, even that I could forgive as simply the typical anti-monarchy American attitude, it is his recent unholy alliance with Mitt Romney that has put me off Ron Paul. From anyone else it would be typical but I thought he was one of the few too honest for such things.
DeleteIt doesn't surprise me about his statements on the Persian Shah, but do you have any references to specific examples?
DeleteRegarding the alleged alliance, Ron Paul denies it here.
I've heard him say it a number of times but I'm not going to fish through YouTube for quotes, doesn't matter to me whether you believe it or not. As for the alliance with Romney, "Never believe anything until it's officially been denied". I didn't want to believe it myself but that last debate was the final straw. He's run attack ads on everyone BUT Romney, he says he's after Santorum because Santorum is (or was) in the lead but he never attacked Romney the many times he's been in the lead and he's spent money on anti-Santorum ads in Michigan where he isn't even campaigning. Everything he says about Santorum he could say to even greater effect about Romney -but he never does. Even in that clip there, he says there's not much difference between Romney and Santorum ... but then only attacks Santorum. He's even given a few opportunities to take apart Romney's tax plan and he doesn't touch it.
DeleteI'm sure there's no open, honest agreement -that would be flirting with breaking the law. But Romney is clearly the favorite of the GOP establishment, all the top Republican leaders have endorsed him and Paul's refusal to go after him doesn't make him look like much of a non-party guy. His own campaign manager said they were "cooperating" with the Romney campaign. Ron Paul himself has pretty much said the same http://youtu.be/WnbQ6kpSmyI
It certainly is plausible that he said it (about the Shah of Persia), and it does fit in with his Americanism, which is a not-as-bad form of Americanism as the neocon variant, but it still is Americanism. If you did have a reference, that would be great, but no, I did not expect you to spend a lot of time finding a reference if you did not have it at hand.
DeleteThat being said, it might not matter that much to me what you believe I believe.
As for the alliance allegations, I don't think there is an alliance, but I may be wrong.
Paul's belief in American superiority is the same as the others, he just doesn't feel the need to try to export it all over the world like the others do. Believe what you want, you're talking to someone who doesn't see much point in arguing these things to people who can vote, much less anyone who can't. I also know from past experience that trying to argue that Ron Paul is anything less than perfect to one of his fans is a wasted exercise. I don't care to do it.
DeleteWith Paul & Romney, like I said, I don't think they actually signed a treaty or something but Paul himself admitted that they are cooperating. I'd love to be proven wrong and have my faith restored though, I'd welcome anything showing him speaking of another candidate in the same glowing terms he used about Romney in the link I posted, some anti-Romney attack ads, calling Romney some names, whatever. If they exist, I havn't seen them.
Just to double-down on my unpopularity; Paul is being misleading when he talks about the Shah as well. He makes it sound as if the U.S. imposed him on Iran in the first place when the actual event he refers to is when the US & UK supported the Shah returning to power after the coup attempt of 1953. Even then, the US did not intervene militarily but provided money to the pro-Shah and anti-communist forces.
If you want to believe that I view Ron Paul as perfect, please feel free to do so.
DeleteAs for being able to vote for POTUS, I am thankful that I can't, and also that I can't for any head of state post for that matter.
Alright I will. And until I see some evidence to contradict what's out there my opinion of him will not change. As for voting for a head-of-state (and you may not believe this either but I'd be rude not to say you may feel free to do so as well) even with my current opinions being what they are, the vote I would most like to cast would be for Ron Paul as President of the Republic of Texas.
DeleteGoodness me, this posting has certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons, Bravo!!!!!
DeleteIt figures that Ron Paul would call a stern authoritarian like the Shah a "tyrant". The United States is liberal to the core, and therefore anti-authoritarian to the core. The Shah was suppressing the socialists and the Islamic radicals. Americans are misarchical and populist. They hate authority and hierarchy.
ReplyDelete