Disgraceful De Facto Diplomats

No Constitutional scholar am I, but I do seem to recall from my seventh-grade civics class that responsibility for relations with foreign governments resides in the Executive Branch - that would be at the discretion of our elected President, I believe.  Are diplomatic appointments not made by the President and confirmed by the Senate?  Well, yes, I believe they are; I checked.

Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution confers upon the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, authority to appoint ALL ambassadors.  There have been no lawful amendments to this provision, so we can assume that it stands unchanged.  Furthermore, Article 1, Section 6 states very clearly: 
"No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he is elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States...; and no Person holding any office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office." 
Clearly, the Framers intended that persons traveling abroad, speaking for our Country, and entering into any agreement with foreign governments would be duly appointed, supported, supervised lawfully, and with un-conflicted interests.  This provision demonstrates a profound respect for the electorate, giving us, so-to-speak, diplomacy with representation. 
Because of these Constitutional provisions, we humble citizens have the guarantee that only persons having properly-conferred authority to do so, will speak for us abroad.  So, for the past several years, watching the parade of Democrats marching to foreign shores declaring America's disgust with her own President, declaring her a "pariah" in the foreigners' holy midst, disclaiming their own culpability in this "unjust" war - I have grown more and more incredulous.  Has the loony-left completely lost it now?  Or did a Coup d'etat take place while I was at the grocery store?  No, I checked.  Even according to the New York Times - the newly reincarnated Pravda - W is still President and the Democratic Party et al is not an official diplomatic corps.

So, why on earth would Howard Dean be meeting with foreign governments in the name of the American electorate.  Oh, wait - he says why in an interview with Politico's Roger Simon.  Dean: 
"I am trying to build relationships with other governments in preparation for a Democratic takeover.  I want to make clear that there is opposition in America and that we are ready to take power and that when we do, we are going to have much better relationships with them (emphases mine)."
For a Party whose leaders - Senator Clinton, specifically - have called our current, duly-elected President "arrogant," Dean's wording seems just a tad hypocritical, wouldn't you say?  Forgive me, but I was an English major.  So, the words takeover, take power, and when, not if, strike me as rather absurdly arrogant, especially when coupled with the word Democratic. 

Perhaps that primal scream was more symptomatic than we assumed, indicating a rather extreme mental disorder.  Or perhaps Mr. Dean knows something we do not.  If the quarterback of an upcoming Super bowl approaches a jeweler a week in advance of the actual game in order to purchase a winner's ring, it would raise a few suspicions, would it not?  Surely, though, we should give Mr. Dean the benefit of the doubt here...or somebody in the Democratic Party should get Mr. Dean a straightjacket equipped with a gag for his mouth.

And while they are tending to Mr. Dean, perhaps they ought to dispatch someone to relieve Mr. Carter of his pens and computer.  Jimmy Carter has been part of that disgraceful de facto diplomatic corps for decades now, and I for one, do not take kindly to a citizen using his status of former elected high office to do the public bidding of his Arab financial backers.  It really should have been enough that Mr. Carter unilaterally paved the way for the Iranian Shah's deposing, which began the current Global War on Terror.  Should any more payback really be required?  Now that he is in his mid-eighties, he is easier to dismiss as a demented old fool, but it would be nice for the citizenry if he doddered in private.

As for Ex-President Clinton, it would probably be better for the American electorate, and even more financially gainful for him, if he curtailed his foreign public-speaking engagements in favor of a career in Hollywood movies like his former running-mate. But I would very much appreciate it if he would stop accepting large sums of money from foreigners to speak out against us - the American people and our duly elected President - in public.

Now, this bit of news didn't seem to get picked up by The NYT/Pravda, but last December the United Press International reported that "Democratic officials" were meeting with leaders of Hamas.  Isn't Hamas listed by our government as a terrorist organization?  Of course, it is; so why were Democrat officials meeting with them?  As an American citizen, this concerns me somewhat.  Perhaps Mr. Dean wanted to reassure them that things would be much better for them after the Democrats' takeover actually occurs.  This would seem to be very risky business for de facto diplomats.  Dealing with terrorist thugs doesn't seem to be in keeping with that "moral high ground" Mr. Dean has been espousing as held exclusively by Democrats.  I trust someone at our real, official, lawful State Department is looking into this.  I certainly hope so. 

The bottom line is this.  Once you are out of office, you do not speak for any American but yourself.  If you are an elected Senator or Representative, you are proscribed by Article 1, Section 6 of the Constitution from acting as a diplomat or ambassador.  We are paying others to do those jobs in accordance with the law; stick to your own job.  And, if it has not been said before, let me say it now.  The Chairperson of the Democratic National Committee has no - non, nyet, nada - lawful, diplomatic credentials.  According to the Constitution (which is still in force, Mr. Dean), the President appoints and supervises diplomats.  We expect to have the diplomacy with representation afforded us by our Constitution. 

And unless I have made some grievous civics-lesson error, we will have a Presidential election in November of 2008.  If a Democrat is elected, it will not be by takeover unless the Democrats have discovered some way to advance-rig the election.  In short, the Dixie Chicks can get away with publicly denouncing our President on foreign shores, and the only price they will pay is a few lost royalty dollars.  As for the rest of you de facto diplomats, abusing the public trust of the American electorate is serious business and you are skating on very thin ice - especially in a time of war. 

So, stop your meetings with foreign governments, Mr. Dean, and await the results of the election like the rest of us.  And you had better make certain that no foreign government money makes its way into the Democratic Party coffers as a result of your private - completely under-the-radar - meetings.  Because the eye of the public is definitely watching you now.  And, Mr. Dean, in case you missed your history classes, making deals with the devil can land you in a heap of trouble.  Stalin had to learn that the hard way and millions of Russians paid the steep price of his lesson.  Thankfully, Hamas hasn't yet risen to Hitler status, but it wouldn't go down well with Americans if "Democratic officials" such as you, helped make that happen, now would it?

So, all of you disgraceful de facto diplomats, please, please stop.  I am trying to say this nicely.  Truly, I do not wish to offend you.  But you demonstrate a profound disrespect for the American electorate when you arrogantly assume the duties of offices that are not lawfully yours.  In case you have forgotten, we the people are the current elected American government, and every time you go abroad and proclaim that you - not our President - represent us, you are disgracefully defaming our democracy and setting a dangerous precedent that may very well result in our utter downfall.   
No Constitutional scholar am I, but I do seem to recall from my seventh-grade civics class that responsibility for relations with foreign governments resides in the Executive Branch - that would be at the discretion of our elected President, I believe.  Are diplomatic appointments not made by the President and confirmed by the Senate?  Well, yes, I believe they are; I checked.

Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution confers upon the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, authority to appoint ALL ambassadors.  There have been no lawful amendments to this provision, so we can assume that it stands unchanged.  Furthermore, Article 1, Section 6 states very clearly: 
"No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he is elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States...; and no Person holding any office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office." 
Clearly, the Framers intended that persons traveling abroad, speaking for our Country, and entering into any agreement with foreign governments would be duly appointed, supported, supervised lawfully, and with un-conflicted interests.  This provision demonstrates a profound respect for the electorate, giving us, so-to-speak, diplomacy with representation. 
Because of these Constitutional provisions, we humble citizens have the guarantee that only persons having properly-conferred authority to do so, will speak for us abroad.  So, for the past several years, watching the parade of Democrats marching to foreign shores declaring America's disgust with her own President, declaring her a "pariah" in the foreigners' holy midst, disclaiming their own culpability in this "unjust" war - I have grown more and more incredulous.  Has the loony-left completely lost it now?  Or did a Coup d'etat take place while I was at the grocery store?  No, I checked.  Even according to the New York Times - the newly reincarnated Pravda - W is still President and the Democratic Party et al is not an official diplomatic corps.

So, why on earth would Howard Dean be meeting with foreign governments in the name of the American electorate.  Oh, wait - he says why in an interview with Politico's Roger Simon.  Dean: 
"I am trying to build relationships with other governments in preparation for a Democratic takeover.  I want to make clear that there is opposition in America and that we are ready to take power and that when we do, we are going to have much better relationships with them (emphases mine)."
For a Party whose leaders - Senator Clinton, specifically - have called our current, duly-elected President "arrogant," Dean's wording seems just a tad hypocritical, wouldn't you say?  Forgive me, but I was an English major.  So, the words takeover, take power, and when, not if, strike me as rather absurdly arrogant, especially when coupled with the word Democratic. 

Perhaps that primal scream was more symptomatic than we assumed, indicating a rather extreme mental disorder.  Or perhaps Mr. Dean knows something we do not.  If the quarterback of an upcoming Super bowl approaches a jeweler a week in advance of the actual game in order to purchase a winner's ring, it would raise a few suspicions, would it not?  Surely, though, we should give Mr. Dean the benefit of the doubt here...or somebody in the Democratic Party should get Mr. Dean a straightjacket equipped with a gag for his mouth.

And while they are tending to Mr. Dean, perhaps they ought to dispatch someone to relieve Mr. Carter of his pens and computer.  Jimmy Carter has been part of that disgraceful de facto diplomatic corps for decades now, and I for one, do not take kindly to a citizen using his status of former elected high office to do the public bidding of his Arab financial backers.  It really should have been enough that Mr. Carter unilaterally paved the way for the Iranian Shah's deposing, which began the current Global War on Terror.  Should any more payback really be required?  Now that he is in his mid-eighties, he is easier to dismiss as a demented old fool, but it would be nice for the citizenry if he doddered in private.

As for Ex-President Clinton, it would probably be better for the American electorate, and even more financially gainful for him, if he curtailed his foreign public-speaking engagements in favor of a career in Hollywood movies like his former running-mate. But I would very much appreciate it if he would stop accepting large sums of money from foreigners to speak out against us - the American people and our duly elected President - in public.

Now, this bit of news didn't seem to get picked up by The NYT/Pravda, but last December the United Press International reported that "Democratic officials" were meeting with leaders of Hamas.  Isn't Hamas listed by our government as a terrorist organization?  Of course, it is; so why were Democrat officials meeting with them?  As an American citizen, this concerns me somewhat.  Perhaps Mr. Dean wanted to reassure them that things would be much better for them after the Democrats' takeover actually occurs.  This would seem to be very risky business for de facto diplomats.  Dealing with terrorist thugs doesn't seem to be in keeping with that "moral high ground" Mr. Dean has been espousing as held exclusively by Democrats.  I trust someone at our real, official, lawful State Department is looking into this.  I certainly hope so. 

The bottom line is this.  Once you are out of office, you do not speak for any American but yourself.  If you are an elected Senator or Representative, you are proscribed by Article 1, Section 6 of the Constitution from acting as a diplomat or ambassador.  We are paying others to do those jobs in accordance with the law; stick to your own job.  And, if it has not been said before, let me say it now.  The Chairperson of the Democratic National Committee has no - non, nyet, nada - lawful, diplomatic credentials.  According to the Constitution (which is still in force, Mr. Dean), the President appoints and supervises diplomats.  We expect to have the diplomacy with representation afforded us by our Constitution. 

And unless I have made some grievous civics-lesson error, we will have a Presidential election in November of 2008.  If a Democrat is elected, it will not be by takeover unless the Democrats have discovered some way to advance-rig the election.  In short, the Dixie Chicks can get away with publicly denouncing our President on foreign shores, and the only price they will pay is a few lost royalty dollars.  As for the rest of you de facto diplomats, abusing the public trust of the American electorate is serious business and you are skating on very thin ice - especially in a time of war. 

So, stop your meetings with foreign governments, Mr. Dean, and await the results of the election like the rest of us.  And you had better make certain that no foreign government money makes its way into the Democratic Party coffers as a result of your private - completely under-the-radar - meetings.  Because the eye of the public is definitely watching you now.  And, Mr. Dean, in case you missed your history classes, making deals with the devil can land you in a heap of trouble.  Stalin had to learn that the hard way and millions of Russians paid the steep price of his lesson.  Thankfully, Hamas hasn't yet risen to Hitler status, but it wouldn't go down well with Americans if "Democratic officials" such as you, helped make that happen, now would it?

So, all of you disgraceful de facto diplomats, please, please stop.  I am trying to say this nicely.  Truly, I do not wish to offend you.  But you demonstrate a profound disrespect for the American electorate when you arrogantly assume the duties of offices that are not lawfully yours.  In case you have forgotten, we the people are the current elected American government, and every time you go abroad and proclaim that you - not our President - represent us, you are disgracefully defaming our democracy and setting a dangerous precedent that may very well result in our utter downfall.