No matter who one votes for in the American Presidential election this coming November, that person will be someone who should not be there.
At the time that I write this, there are only three possible Presidents remaining (or, for those of you who are the kings of wishful thinking, there is a fourth named “Al Gore”, but he most definitely does not belong in the Oval Office, either). They are The Black Guy, The Hillary, and The Big Mac.
Many like to call The Big Mac “the Maverick”, but it’s a sad world indeed if a political Centrist is what we now call a “maverick”.
And that’s really my point.
With every day that goes by, we get our time taken up by news of what one or all three of these Oval Office aspirants has most recently said or done. But not a single of them gives any indication at all that they intend to say or do what they should.
To this writer, The Big Mac clearly has a better character, a superior resume, and a relatively larger measure of the quality that all three potential Presidents should have. What’s more, he should have little difficulty winning at this point, given the revealed travesties that are the “characters” of his two potential adversaries (but please note my use of the word “should”).
But he still falls far short of the mark.
This time around, we Americans have no choice (again, except for what is for many wishful thinking, for the rest of us a nightmare scenario) but to elect a Senator to the Oval Office. This will be the first time a Senator has gone to the Oval Office since 1960, when one was helped in by the Mafia.
Starting in 1995 and happening every year since then, Republican Congressman John Shedagg of Arizona introduces on the floor of the House a bill called the Enumerated Powers Act. This bill would stipulate that all bills introduced in the U.S. Congress would have to include a clear a statement setting forth the specific Constitutional authority by which the law would be enacted.
The Act has 44 co-Sponsors in the House, but not a single one in the Senate—where the three Presidential contenders come from.
It is part –an enormous part—of the President’s responsibility to check the Congress, because the Founders understood that without being checked the Congress, whose number one priority is appropriations, would forever conspire to sell off everybody’s silverware.
Presidents in times past have used this Constitutional power of theirs—known as the “veto”—to smack down the ruthless power-mad aspirations of the silverware sellers.
President Grover Cleveland (1885-1889, 1893-1897) vetoed hundreds of proposed laws and acts on the grounds that he could find no Constitutional authority for the Congress to be attempting to pass them.
President Franklin Pierce (March 4, 1853 to March 3, 1857) had, previously, vetoed legislation to use federal welfare money to aid the mentally ill on the grounds that there is no such authority for the Congress to engage in charity.
And aye, there’s the rub. We have three Presidential candidates who all speak of change but not a single one who will deliver us from the evil that the Congress that has become with its nearly unchecked appropriations for “helpful” entitlement measures that are driving the nation, and have been driving the nation, into debt unlike any war ever seen, including the current one.
All three of these Senators have proven themselves to be the kind that will appropriate your money for inappropriate acts. No matter how they try to disguise it as “the public good”, it’s nothing more than conspiring to steal everyone’s silverware. And the more you have, the more they’ll take.
The “re-distribution of wealth” by the federal government means nothing more than that they will steal some people’s silverware, put it in somebody else’s house, and then steal it all from that house later on.
Founder James Madison wrote, "With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
The Big Mac, at least, has admitted that he knows little about economics (neither do the other two, but they won’t tell you so). Apparently, neither he nor his rivals know much about history, either.
Or principles.
Leave Your Comments