It Seems Like The Toughest Thing To Do Is Support The President

The main thing I wanna do nowadays is say something that could help ease the pressure off the Executive. Things seem to be going better in Iraq; the economy is excellent; I’m still thrilled about things like the Mexico City policy and the campaigning he did in the election prior to this last one that brought Republicans into office.

Perhaps the main obstacle to recognizing that the President has done anything right isn’t on the Left or the Right. Conspiracy theory can’t go anywhere, after all, if people don’t believe it. And criticisms of the President don’t have to add up to a complete repudiation of the President’s policies.

Maybe the main obstacle is the composition of Congress. Listening to Senator Biden the other day made me want to throw up. I asserted shortly afterward that he sounded like the sort of blowhard that brags way too much in bars and gets every woman to turn far, far away from him.

Now I’m thinking that he, like the rest of Congress, didn’t just get the idea of “let’s throw lots of facts that may or may not add up at people to show how smart and concerned we are, instead of admitting we’re a bunch of wusses” from nowhere. This particular style of “argument” – bullying people with information that may or may not be true – isn’t just characteristic of idiots at bars.

It’s also the hallmark of dealing with overconfident all-knowing arrogant old people, which Congress represents all too well.

I should make it clear I love the elderly, and find them very engaging and thoughtful for the most part. And I owe people older than me quite a lot, and I’ve seen a number of them age well and I’d be happy if I aged half that well.

It is because of old people I know something. It’s because I owe so much to one segment that I have to rail against this other segment.

I think all of us know exactly what segment of the elderly I’m talking about right now.

This is the segment which only knows how to “geeze” – as Dave Barry said, regarding “how to geeze,” these are people that pick one speed for their car, and keep that speed whether in the driveway or on the interstate.

Instead of term limits, can we get an age restriction on people in Congress? I mean, this is ridiculous – at least the jerk at the bar can be made to shut up if someone bigger than him stares hard at him. But Granny and Grandpa are immune to the threat of confrontation, because they’ve got nothing to lose, and heck, I don’t want to get strangled by a hearing aid cord.

The key difference between Congress, the old people that like to hear themselves talk & bullies, and the older people that mean genuinely well, is that one set of people want to be right just for the sake of being right.

The other group wants to give to others, and wants a legacy of charity.

In a sense, these two groups of older people are symbolic for the value of knowledge: either we want to say we’re right for an ego boost or power only, or we want to be right because there’s far more on the line.

Perhaps the key is that instead of an age restriction, we should go find those who are older that are living their lives well – not just being active or being loud about politics, but instead giving back to their families, doing the best for others who are worse off – and let’s have them run. Let’s get people in politics who want nothing to do with politics, because they know how life is meant to be lived, and understand how difficult it is to do anything well.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Filed under: Congress, Double Standards, Presidency

Lucky in the U.S. …

There are a lot of American born people that are currently bashing this Country. They don’t like the policies of our government. Some think that we ‘brought the attacks of 9/11 on ourselves’. Others think that everything about the US is just plain evil.

These people are American citizens protesting on American soil. Yet, they don’t seem to be in a hurry to board a boat to live in another country. There is no line of people denouncing their citizenship. No steady stream of Americans immigrating to Mexico, Canada, or other countries. AND I’m pretty sure that there is no American refugee crisis.

Nope, these folks are staying put, right where they are, free to carry their protest signs without consequence. They are allowed to say what they want about our President and not fear execution for it. Our celebrities can oppose our government officials, criticize policy, and hold rallies with officials of communist governments and still enjoy the same freedoms and privileges as those of us that love this land and all it offers us.

To those people, I ask this; If you were offered reasonable means to start over in another country, where would you go? To a country that allowed you the same rights you have here, but without all these things you seem to abhor and has not had a successful terror attack in six years?

Where would you go?

Filed under: anti-american, Double Standards, liberal agenda, Uncategorized

Court Rejects ACLU Domestic Spying Suit

CINCINNATI — A divided federal appeals court rejected a lawsuit Friday challenging President Bush’s domestic spying program without ruling on the issue of whether warrantless wiretapping is legal.

In a 2-1 decision with Republican-appointed judges in the majority, a three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the plaintiffs had no standing to sue because they couldn’t prove their communications had been monitored by the government.

Read more here: newsmax.com

Filed under: ACLU, anti-american, Communism, Double Standards, liberal agenda, Marxism, National Security, News, Security, Stop The Aclu, Uncategorized

Pelosi Invests in Iran

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has disclosed that she holds stock valued at up to $15,000 in Alcatel-Lucent (formerly Alcatel SA), a company with extensive investments in Iran and Sudan — nations that sponsor terrorism.

The disclosure of Pelosi’s holdings comes at the same time that legislation is making its way through the California legislature barring state pension fund managers from investing in companies, like Alcatel-Lucent, that do business with “terror-friendly” nations.

Read more here: newsmax.com

Filed under: american politics, anti-american, anti-americanism, Democrats, Double Standards, foreign policy, Iran, Liberal, liberal agenda, liberalism, News, Terrorist, Uncategorized

I Should Say That I Don’t Like One Bit How Gingrich Is Criticizing the President

As far as I’m concerned, anti-Bush porn

The fundamental disagreement between Speaker Gingrich and I is that he is far too practical and can’t see the flood that is American politics. He’s probably thinking there is a “center,” or those who are more liberal that he can get into the fold in order to run a campaign.

I have written before about the debasement of speech in our current climate, and how looking for “smart solutions” (i.e. his proposal for educational policy, his ideas about consolidating economic gain) his  to problems might be good politics in terms of getting elected, but terrible politics if America is to be a force for good.

If Newt Gingrich wants to win me over – me, who considers him the most qualified candidate for the job – he has to start taking on the climate of conspiracy theory which makes whatever President Bush do seem wrong.

If he does not start slamming that climate, the climate which looked for all sorts of dirt on this Administration, could barely make any of it stick, and in the process obstructed its ability to govern and conduct a war, he will probably demonstrate that he does not have what it takes to govern.

The problem with that climate is that it demands perfection. No elected official is allowed to do things like “conduct a foreign policy,” because people might die or things might go wrong. The idea behind corn-fuel is that rid of “foreign oil,” we can sit isolationist and not worry about the rest of the world. The criticism of the President on any number of fronts, actually, reduces to anarchism (where people believe all is perfect if “left alone”) or “he isn’t bold enough.”

No one seems to take into account how tough the job of being President is. He doesn’t have choices half the time. Most things the Executive does are mandated. To be shouted down by the people and Congress and the judiciary is the end of the Presidency. He needs some support, after all.

I mean, you know full well that Rightist criticism of the President is getting far more strident and far more irrational. I don’t like his budget or immigration policy. But that doesn’t mean that he picked these things because he’s a liberal – he probably goes that course because of what is feasible. Similarly, he can’t solve all the problems of the war just by being bolder. He’s actually extremely bold right now.

The criticism advanced against him by the Right is that he’s not bold on conservative issues. And I’m just like, at some point, a leader has to be trusted. I don’t know what I would do to get 12 million illegals out of this country. I know this, strengthening the INS would inevitably result in lots of good people who aren’t illegal getting kicked out. And deportation proceedings aren’t exactly cozy nice times – the publicity he’d get would destroy the Administration once and for all, if he built the INS to the level he needed to in order to deny any sort of amnesty wholly. Furthermore, the idea behind a big budget actually makes tactical sense: the idea once upon a time was to cut out the Democrats’ base from under them. One way to do this is staff government with conservatives. Cutting taxes while spending means, of course, that government can’t grow forever: the rate of governmental spending would have to decrease, and what would be left are budget cutting Republicans in government more amenable to dismantling it. Again, I don’t agree with any of this stuff, but isn’t it amazing how quick everyone is to judge before trying to think about why people do things?

If rationales like these haven’t been trotted out before, it’s because of how we conduct politics. We shout at each other. Newt knows this. He knows it has to change.

And it has to change now. I have my disagreements with the President, but demanding perfection from him is not politics. And Newt’s criticisms add up to “he needed to have the trust of the people and be above the conspiracy theory,” and that’s just impossible in today’s day and age. Those of us on the Right couldn’t stop Michael Moore from making a film that was basically slander and driving voters Leftward for literally lying. Until we can moderate the conversation, we can’t hold the administration responsible, for the most part, about what is said about it. It is nearly impossible to be President in this day and age.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Filed under: conservative, Double Standards, newt gingrich, Presidency

It’s One Thing to be Liberal, But This is Ridiculous

According to a recent poll, 1 in 4 American Muslims think suicide bombings are acceptable in the defense of religion. Also, another poll shows 35% of Democrats think President Bush knew in advance about 9/11

I hate polls. I refuse to be alarmed by this. What is on my mind is whether people who hold views such as the above should be allowed to vote.

I mean, truth be told, if you think that the government only exists to spy on you and kill you and the only defense is suicide bombing at points, you’re nuts. We have a clear example of a government that does want to spy on its citizens and kill them if someone in that gov’t can get $5 out of it all.

I blame the way we’ve been educated for this. If people were forced to reconcile their private opinions with something oriented to the common good, something genuinely public, there would probably be a lot less conspiracy theory.

Somebody today was attempting to argue with me for saying we don’t have any way of educating people how to conduct themselves publicly. They were half-right to do this, because it seems like I’m saying that a crowd shouting racist things is OK because we don’t educate properly.

But the half in which they’re wrong is critical: they just can’t conceive what a truly public education could be. The only values that matter are private values, and all government exists to do is allow us to fight about our private concerns. If that’s the case, then strictly speaking, there is no such thing as government or rule of law.

When we expect people to treat us the same way we treat them – with respect and dignity – we’re imposing a higher notion of equality on a baser notion that all of us use to defend ourselves. That baser notion is that we’re all human, so we’re all equal. The higher notion is that we’re human, so maybe we should act like human beings. A truly public education enables one to reconcile these spheres: if you know how to truly conduct yourself in public, you have a way of reconciling your privately held-values with the realities of public life, i.e. getting shouted down by the lowest common denominator, etc.

Ironically enough, the beauty queen shouted down in Mexico has this sort of education, because being a beauty contestant means knowing how to deal with crowds and large scale politicking. We don’t, and this is becoming an increasing problem as the “center” of politics becomes blander, since that’s the only conception of “acceptable to all” we have. Once, Lincoln and Churchill were public men. Now they would be fringe candidates.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Filed under: american politics, anti-americanism, Double Standards, Free Speech, liberal agenda, Terrorist

DEMOCRATS TO CHANGE 185 YEAR-OLD HOUSE RULE TO ALLOW TAX HIKES WITHOUT HAVING TO VOTE

In a stunning move, House Democrats today revealed they will attempt to rewrite House rules that have gone unchanged since 1822 in order to make it possible to increase taxes and government spending without having to vote and be held accountable.  House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) today vowed Republicans will use every available means to fight this unprecedented change.

Read more here: corner.nationalreview.com

Filed under: american politics, Congress, Democrats, Double Standards, liberal agenda, News, Pelosi, Uncategorized