This is kind of ironic because we do have a king, and the name isn't Washington. The tyranical monarchy of Bush is the head of table. What Washington tried to avoid has taken place when the Bush Cartel took office and control of government. He has denounced the actions of legislators and representatives by blackmail or other illegal means to get his seat of power. Citizens no longer have control of the government, which Washington and writers of the constitutuion also feared and made specific not to happen. But by legislation and proclamation we have lost power and control of the government to self serving maniacle leaders. I don't think this is the country Washington and others envisioned in 1776 as they fought to free america from monarchy control and government taxation. We have lost the battle on both counts, monarchy's running the government and paying more than 40% of income to taxation.

Go to school before you make a dunder-headed comment as you did. Any time people invoke the Constitution, they seem to say something that persuades me that they have not begun to understand that magnificent document. I have taught Con Law classes for the last 10 years and have a jaded opinion about someone who doesn't bother to take a year of the Constitution.

I find your comment about tax rates and blaming Bush to be disingenuous at best. Those opposed to Bush 43 generally cite his tax cuts as ruious to the government's ability to act as it would like (remeber, he CUT taxes). If we are paying taxes too high for your pallet or wallet, Clinton (and to some degree Bush 41) are the culprits you want.

Besides, he won't be in office after January... so your ranting about a monarchy seems oh-so misguided.

Thanks anyway.

We have a KING GEORGE now. It looks like it is time for a tar and feather party! Great war George....love the economy........and we didn't need civil rights anymore.

But our current King George is due to abdicate in about 3 months. And it looks like were going to trade him for an Ayatollah Osama..er, Obama. I wonder what George Washington would think of our current state of national politics. I'm certain her would be appalled at the choice that faces voters next month.

Be grateful that you can vote if you even do that. Dont just be someone who critical of everything and everyone but does nothing about it but complain.

And all this time I thought I was King.

Cute story. Maybe we'd better off with a king.

Why does anyone even really care? Washington wasn't king, and even if he had wanted to be, he would have had too much opposition to it from other early government leaders. I would imagine many more people might be remotely related to actual royalty. Who cares? I've seen this posted all over the Internet this morning and it's really amazing to me that anyone would bother. I swear newspapers often pick up AP stories without even reading them.

It is well known that Thomas Jefferson had relations with Sally Hemmings, a slave on his estate at Monticello. It is also thought that George Washington, whom I admire, may have had posterity in a similar manner. Could you imagine the King of America being African American and a descendant of slaves? Hard to believe but entirely possible. This isn't an attempt to smear George Washington, but rather a reflection on how history can be written in such a way that imperfections and weaknesses of great men are entirely ignored so that all we have to remember or learn is how perfect and heroic our leaders once were. When it comes to history it seems we hear what we want to hear. Just some food for thought. Maybe King Washington lives in the projects right now.

Enough said

To Posterity:

There is no substantial evidence that Jefferson had sexual relations with Sally. She bore a child that has the DNA of a Jefferson, which is more likely one of Jefferson's relatives. (His uncle or his brother.)

I'm tired of people smearing Thomas Jefferson's good name without any hard evidence.

I believe the Founding Fathers were good and honorable men that were faithful to their wives. (Including Benjamin Franklin, trust me - further research will get one farther than popular assumptions.)

Never was the idea of a king to be upon this land if i can recall correctly, it was not to be this constitution was by divine plan. it was already tried before and it did not seem to work [having a kingin the america].

otherwise i would have been in line for the throne.

To follow up on what the last guy said in response to the ridiculous accusations of Mr. Posterity. My understanding is that it has pretty much been proven that the child with Jefferson DNA did come from a brother, not Thomas Jefferson himself. I don't know why this myth about Mr. Jefferson continues to be perpetuated. Nor do I understand why it really matters that much.

Plus, it would be kind of impossible for the "King" to be African American if he were the descendant of slaves, since a REAL African American is somebody that was born there, emigrated to the Unites States, and became a US citizen. I guess you could stretch that to include their children, but not their grandchildren. I'd prefer to call the people to whom you refer "black"; or, if you prefer, "Americans of African descent."

I think I mmight take Paul Wshingtonm, sight unseen, over any of today's candidates (or lack thereof)

Let's write in
Paul Emerson Washington
for President of the United States.

Now that would REALLY BE CHANGE!!!!!

probably laughing and said to himself, this is cool but silly......LOL!!