15 votes

Why Do We Have To Have A President?

Is it really necessary?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

It depends upon our status.

It depends upon our status. If we are a federal (subject) citizens the President of the US is indeed our King and Congress is our Parliament because they have, by law, complete jurisdiction over our person. However, if we chose to be nationals of our States instead, the President and Congress would be merely players in some foreign government, and we would be free to live in republican freedom under the Common Law... But alas.

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/


I wish this was better understood by more people... Well said.

It would be worse without

If we didn't have a president we'd have executive committees. Everyone this has been tried it gets corrupt really fast and only those who know the inside baseball really know who is corrupt and who isn't. Having one guy puts a spotlight on it and makes it more accountable.

Now, so we need executives at the federal level? Probably not.

That makes sense.

That makes sense.

For what?

"Is it really necessary?"

for what?

I use Blue Wave, but don't expect one of THEIR silly taglines.

You dont have to make me feel

You dont have to make me feel stupid. Im just asking a question. It crossed my mind and I told myself "yeah, why do we need one!?". Why do you like having one?

Most of you are saying that

Most of you are saying that we do need a president, but the president is so powerful now! He's more like a king, which George Washington turn down supposably. My friend and I have been arguing lately, because he believes that the founding fathers intentionally setup our government the way they did, just so we can have criminals running it now. He says they made the constitution to vauge. This all started when I read something from a guy named Richard Deacon, who says america is still a British colony and Benjamin Franklin was a double agent. He says " The Revolutionary War was fought and concluded when Cornwallis surrendered to Washington at Yorktown. As Americans we have been taught that we defeated the king and won our freedom. The next document I will use is the Treaty of 1783, which will totally contradict our having won the Revolutionary War. Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and John Jay as you can read in the Treaty were all Esquires and were the signers of this Treaty and the only negotiators of the Treaty. The representative of the king was David Hartley Esqr..

 Benjamin Franklin was the main negotiator for the terms of the Treaty, he spent most of the War traveling between England and France. The use of Esquire declared his and the others British subjection and loyalty to the crown.

In the first article of the Treaty most of the kings claims to America are relinquished, except for his claim to continue receiving gold, silver and copper as gain for his business venture. Article 3 gives Americans the right to fish the waters around the United States and its rivers. In article 4 the United States agreed to pay all bona fide debts. If you will read my other papers on money you will understand that the financiers were working with the king. Why else would he protect their interest with this Treaty?

I wonder if you have seen the main and obvious point? This Treaty was signed in 1783, the war was over in 1781. If the United States defeated England, how is the king granting rights to America, when we were now his equal in status? We supposedly defeated him in the Revolutionary War! So why would these supposed patriot Americans sign such a Treaty, when they knew that this would void any sovereignty gained by the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War? If we had won the Revolutionary War, the king granting us our land would not be necessary, it would have been ours by his loss of the Revolutionary War. To not dictate the terms of a peace treaty in a position of strength after winning a war; means the war was never won. Think of other wars we have won, such as when we defeated Japan. Did McArther allow Japan to dictate to him the terms for surrender? No way! All these men did is gain status and privilege granted by the king and insure the subjection of future unaware generations. Worst of all, they sold out those that gave their lives and property for the chance to be free.

When Cornwallis surrendered to Washington he surrendered the battle, not the war. Read the Article of Capitulation signed by Cornwallis at Yorktown (footnote 3)

Jonathan Williams recorded in his book, Legions of Satan, 1781, that Cornwallis revealed to Washington during his surrender that "a holy war will now begin on America, and when it is ended America will be supposedly the citadel of freedom, but her millions will unknowingly be loyal subjects to the Crown."...."in less than two hundred years the whole nation will be working for divine world government. That government that they believe to be divine will be the British Empire."

All the Treaty did was remove the United States as a liability and obligation of the king. He no longer had to ship material and money to support his subjects and colonies. At the same time he retained financial subjection through debt owed after the Treaty, which is still being created today; millions of dollars a day. And his heirs and successors are still reaping the benefit of the kings original venture. If you will read the following quote from Title 26, you will see just one situation where the king is still collecting a tax from those that receive a benefit from him, on property which is purchased with the money the king supplies, at almost the same percentage". I dont know what to believe on this! What do you guys think? Also why George Washington open the first bank of The United States? Makes no sense.... im so confused. Anyway heres a link to an article explaining this.

"We" don't. The "United States" does

Saying that Obama is "our" President is sort of like saying the leader of Monsanto is "our" CEO. Neither statement is true. The CEO of Monsanto heads up an organization that in comprised of people who draw a paycheck from Monsanto. President Obama is no different: he leads an organization that is comprised of people who constitute the government, but he does not lead me or you. (He may do stuff to me and you, but that just makes him a criminal, not a leader.)

Seems like semantics, I know, but it's important to make the distinctions to keep your head straight. Otherwise you get sucked into the idea that somehow we are stakeholders and have a duty to be loyal to our 'leader.'

The only leader I've got is making me breakfast in the other room.

You're so right. Its like

You're so right. Its like when sports fans say " we're gonna win it all this year!" Lol, like if we're part owners of the team. All the government does is feed off of us, just like a sports team.

Article Two of the United States Constitution


No More Kings!


"I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."


There is no duration defined in the Oath

It's NOT "a free country."

A "Free Country" is a political entity that can do anything that it wants to. That is NOT the point of the USA. It's a country where the people are Free to do what they want to do. The Purpose of the Governemnt is to secure and protect those Liberties.

Freedom is my Worship Word!

That was great! Thank you for

That was great! Thank you for that.

Thank you!

This is a family favorite.

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Because We The People

need to designate someone to change the condom every 4 years.

Because the Constitution

is still the law of the land. We just don't have many government personnel who follow the law.

Freedom is the ability to do what you want to do.
Liberty is the ability to do what you ought to do.
"Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." 2 Corinthians 3:17

As someone smarter than me

As someone smarter than me once put it; the constitution either endorses the government we have now, or it is powerless to stop it.

Too bad

Too bad that the "right" to have a President wasn't written into the Bill of Rights. We'd be rid of the bastards by now, like we're rid of all the other "rights".

Free men need presidents like fish need bicycles Starkist.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...

someone has to

golf and vacation 172 days a year.

You may be onto something

If we could just make it 365 days a year -- problem solved.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...

To have someone to blame

Sure the name changes every 4 to 8 years, but it's fun to pretend all the problems are the current guy's fault. If there was no president then we'd actually have to pay attention.

This is one of the best posts of the thread. Great Point

Congress (and how it is currently chosen) is at least as big a problem. We really should go back to the 1:40,000 Representative to people ratio. The Senate should be chosen by state legislatures, not popular vote. Some members of the Supreme Court should be served with Articles of Particulars as well for their disdain for the original intent of the founders.

These are simply the revealed parts of the iceburg we are headed for, however.

The real problem is a lawless society.

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15



Check out some rothbard

Questions tend to be answered.



How it’s going? I’ve got a book for you to read. We can thank ronb28135 for recommending it. It’s titled “Hologram of Liberty”. I had to by the actual book, don’t believe it’s available in e-form yet.



If I were to write a book (which I am not qualified to do, maybe research one, but not write one) this is exactly what I would say. I am only 25 pages into it and think this might be the best book that lays the exact reason for the loss of Liberty in this country. It’s written for us Anti-Federalist of the generation.

Thank you very much Goldspan

I am grateful. I don't have $30 to drop on a book right now, but when I do, this will be the one.

Here is a question for you, do you have an opinion on Alexander Hamilton? I mean as a man. Obviously you wish he'd never been born, but as a man and thinker he is quite interesting.


The only book i have read

about Hamilton was Woods book “Hamilton Curse”. I know he was a nationalist and was the driving force behind the Constitution …..by default I don’t like him. I know Aaron Burr didn’t like him even though they were basically on the same side politically. If i were alive in the time i would dual him myself, thank God for Aron Burr! Jefferson basically hated him politically. Hamilton pushed for a national bank and wanted a national government like those in Great Britain and France.

Why do you ask?

Sea……send me your e-mail address and information and I am going to send you this book. Please don’t worry about this….it’s a gift and when you can afford to buy this book…..pay it forward to someone you would like to share it with. I do this as a way to pass the message along, it can start with you and if people keep it going we can spread the message of Liberty.

So e-mail me your information privately and Amazon will have it to you in a week or so.

Got it!

Arrived today. Incidentally I am going to start reading it today.

Thanks again goldspan!





Alexander Hamilton just might be my favorite character in colonial/American history. I know that sounds like sacrilege, and i don't pretend that he is not the most influential mercantilist in the last 230 years. I often see however, especially in libertarian circles, Hamilton getting the short end of the stick.

Hamilton was as Rothbard puts it "Morris' Disciple", but really more of a stern Ideologue than anything else. He really believed what he preached, looking at the British empire as a huge success and something to model the new government after. He may have been a staunch statist, but was no crony. At the end of the day, I do not blame him for his short-comings. Remember, it is only with the hindsight of American history, that we are able to see, so clearly, the abject failure of his vision.

Hamilton did however have alternate contributions that are overlooked, and took stands on positions his anti-federalist counterparts. Don't forget, Jefferson envisioned a land holding aristocracy, advocated freehold suffrage and compulsory public education, was pro-slavery and was a tax and spend liberal while in office. A statist through and through.

It wasn't until Rothbard that I discover a political and economic theorist that I thought came even close to perfect. Even Rothbard's positions do not come without inconsistency. This really further illustrates the point. We should not characterize a man based on a few of his positions. The positions is what is to be judged, the man should not be.

Back to Hamilton. He has a life story that is extremely fascinating. From his childhood in the Caribbean, his time in the military as a colonel, and personal aide to Washington. He was uncompromising, passionate, and an astute intellectual. He believed in meritocracy, and was a fierce opponent of slavery. He believed in industry. His protectionist nature was rooted in strengthening the economic structure of the "Nation" rather than protecting a few industries for personal gain.

Sorry for the rant. I don't believe that Hamilton was good for the country, but it does help put some history in perspective. I wish that the man had the work of the Austrians to go on. If he had been on the side of liberty, I firmly believe that we would have gotten the freedom mankind deserves. If anything can be said about Hamilton, He earned what he got, and got whatever he wanted.

Maybe I am wrong about him. Maybe he was just a crony. I haven't found it in the research but it may well be there.

I recommend Chernow's Biography. It is a biased apology for certain, but extremely well researched and written. It pears into his nature and development. If you can forgive him his legacy, you will thoroughly enjoy it. At worst you will have more ammunition to attack people like me with. Either way, recommending it is the least I can do for your kindness. One good turn deserves another.

I sent you my contact information. I am grateful. By your recommendation, I will probably have my kids read it after I am done. And by the way, it doesn't bother me in the least. It would if I felt like I had somehow deceitfully manipulated you into doing it. I didn't. Your actions are yours, completely voluntary.


I can appreciate what you are saying

But over the years I have developed a more “it’s about the game” approach rather than it being “about the players” mentality. I believe I can thank Rothbard and my experience coaching my son’s pee wee football team for the change in my perspective.

An analogy would be…..before coaching I thought I knew a lot about football. I mean I keep up with just about the roster of every team and knew who all the coaches were and watched all the shows….and all these shows were geared towards that type of information. But once I started coaching I learn how little I actually knew about the game. Oh I knew about formation and defensive schemes (at least I thought I did)…but it was still centered on the players. Once I starting teaching myself about coaching, because I need to instruct these kids…..5 and 6 year olds….I really got into the details of the “game” of football. To me now the most exciting part of the game is the 25 seconds between plays. That’s the real chess match. I have stopped watching all these shows because NONE of them actually talk about the game of football, except “NFL Match-Up” the only show I watch.

That’s the way I feel about history…..now I would no more read a biography of someone from history then I would watch one of those football shows and I would especially never read a biography about someone who the only research was the writing from the person in question. Today my research style is more of knowing what was happening at the time in question as a whole……what was going on in the game…..the score, down and distance, offensive personal on the field ( is it 21, 22 , 12 10) the defensive alignments ( is it a under front, over front…..coverage, cover 2, Tampa 2 , cover 3, cover zero….where can they blitz from fish blitz, a corner blitz, double A gap, some other blitz are they playing a robber….all this goes through my head within about 8 seconds) who the QB identifies as the “MIKE” so I know how they are going to slide the protection( you know the QB identifies the MIKE based upon the front and to identify the WILL because that’s the back’s blocking assignment)…..is a run or a pass……man run blocking is so much more intricate then pass blocking…..are they pulling, wham blocking….full back lead….run blocking is fun!

This is how I look at history…..if you do……. there is no way one person jumps out at me, just depend on what he was up to……is he blitzing my Liberty……( this is why it’s not important to solve 911 because all I have to see is the results ( War & Homeland Security Act) to know the State is Blitzing my Liberty…..the opponent are The State vs Liberty( Federalist vs Anti-Federalist)……unfortunately political history……it’s extremely difficult to decide which team they are on. Take Andrew Jackson……I mean you have to love him for opposing the National Bank….. but man what he did to the native Americans……that right up there with Hitler, so really it comes down to this ……the State, no matter who is in charge is the Enemy……..and I am on the team of Liberty…..therefore my team is pretty small……but we are smarter…even though we keep losing.