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: 

It’s awfully easy to talk tough on the taxpayers’ dime. 

None of this, except for releasing her tax return, can or should be done without the advice and consent of Congress and possibly the judiciary. 

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.


return to column archives

home - columns - images - bio - contact - links is proudly listed as a RightPage

All content copyright 2000 - 2025