Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Conflicts Of Interest - Charley Reese
King Features Syndicate ^ | 1/1/2003 | Charley Reese

Posted on 01/01/2003 9:32:50 AM PST by George Frm Br00klyn Park

Charley Reese

For Wednesday, January 1, 2003

Conflicts Of Interest

Because I hate the lists that crop up in journalism this time of year, I always use the opportunity to declare my conflicts of interest, both fiscal and philosophical. I believe readers have a right to know this about journalists.

For the first time, I have income from Social Security, and I know now why so many seniors bag groceries. You'd be hard-pressed to live on it. My main source of income is the sale of this column, or my half of it, anyway. King Features gets the other half, and rightly so, for doing the work of selling and physically processing it.

I had intended to have some income from my individual retirement account, which I rolled over just in time for the market to take a shark-sized bite out of it. As for the part in bonds, the Federal Reserve has seen to it that I won't be going on a spending spree anytime soon. I don't accept fees for speaking, and so, in short, I have no financial conflicts of interest.

As for organizations I belong to, there are just three: the Sons of Confederate Veterans (one grandpa and two great-grandpas proudly wore the gray); the National Rifle Association; and the League of the South. The last has been called a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, but if you believe anything that outfit says, you should do a good Internet search and read some of the exposés that have been written about it. Personally, I don't know anybody in the league who hates anybody, including Yankees, some of whom are members. I personally hate beets, and there are probably some who hate spinach. I suspect it's our love for the Constitution that brought us the ire of the SPLC, which makes millions scaring liberals. At any rate, you can see for yourself by checking the Web site, www.dixienet.org.

I refuse to allow anyone or any organization to dictate my beliefs, associations or behavior by name-calling. I stand by what I say and what I write, and if you like it, fine, and if you don't, fine. When I quit the advertising business years ago, I gave up writing with an ulterior motive. What I write is what I believe at the time to be true. Being a fallible human, it might or might not be true. I don't pretend to be the source of ultimate truth, just an informed opinion. My only goal is to provoke readers into thinking.

I'm registered as a Democrat, but like many Americans I vote for the candidate, not the party. Personally, though I am a conservative, I have more respect for honest liberals than I do for phony conservatives. Those are politicians whose conservatism never gets beyond their campaign speeches. I do indeed hate to be lied to. In retrospect, I wish I had voted for Ralph Nader. He was the only candidate last time who actually told the truth. If we're going to get stuck with socialism, I'd prefer it be called socialism rather than "compassionate conservatism."

As for the details of my political belief, you can read the farewell address of George Washington. I agree with everything he said. No exceptions. To sum up, a strict interpretation of the Constitution, a strict separation of powers, a strong national defense, an isolationist foreign policy, a free economy and the absence of foreign influence in our affairs.

Well, that's about it. I hope you have a happy New Year. I hope we don't get into a war or a depression. Life is tough enough without politicians and usurers making it worse. Don't let cynicism make you forget that we have a responsibility to children to leave them a decent world.



© 2002 by King Features Syndicate, Inc.

THIS article at King Features Syndicate, Inc.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; Philosophy
KEYWORDS:
All, Charley is up front about where he is coming from. Are most of his detractors?? Happy new year everybody! Peace and love, George.
1 posted on 01/01/2003 9:32:50 AM PST by George Frm Br00klyn Park
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: George Frm Br00klyn Park
Charley is a bleeding heart socialist liberal who hates our military and the Bush family. The only thing his writings are good for are for the urinary deposits of dogs and birds.
2 posted on 01/01/2003 10:07:01 AM PST by Nuke'm Glowing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: George Frm Br00klyn Park
Here's an interesting follow-up on Charlie Reese's comment about George Washington's Farewell Address to the People of America. Until about ten years ago, that Address was read aloud in Congress every year on the anniversary of Washington's delivery of it to Congress in writing. (In Washington's day and long afterwards, Presidents never went to Congress to give any speeches. They submitted all communications in writing.)

But Washington's Farewell Address is chock-a-block with references to "strict obedience to the Constitution," avoidance of "entangling alliances with foreign nations," but most of all it has repeated references to "belief in God" and to the necessary connection between "religion and public morality." It seems that the majority of the Members of Congress in both Houses became embarrassed by the repeated reading of this Address -- whose principles they violate on a daily basis.

Republicans and Democrats alike were shamed by Washington's words, though the shame was generated by different passages for these two parties. So they quietly ended this tradition. Any Member of Congress could begin this tradition again, by reading the Address on "Special Orders" and inviting all other Members to attend, and take part if they wish. But even the "good guys" in Congress are frequently afraid to confront the "bad guys" because the "bad guys" are in the majority, and there are those Committee assignments, long-rolling favors, and other personal benefits to consider, doncha know?

Sad. But it is a bright spot to see Charlie Reese boldly stating his commitment to George Washington's ancient but still relevant principles.

Congressman Billybob

Click for latest column on UPI, "Incision Decision in the Senate" (Not yet on UPI wire, or FR.)

As the politician formerly known as Al Gore has said, Buy my book, "to Restore Trust in America"

3 posted on 01/01/2003 10:34:18 AM PST by Congressman Billybob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
I seriously doubt that George Washington would be ushing for an isolationist foreign policy. Back in the days of Washington it took weeks to cross the oceans in a sailing vessel. But steamships cut the time down to days. Airplanes cut the time down to hours. An ICBM makes it across in less time than it takes for Domino's to deliver a pizza.

In essence, that part of his advice has been grossly outdated. Certainly Washington and Jefferson would not have sat on the sidelines while Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo were running amuck.
4 posted on 01/01/2003 11:40:36 AM PST by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
I am surprised that Con. Ron Paul has not read Washington's Farewell into the Record. I just sent him your comment and a lnk to Reese. Paul and Reese may still have a few FRiends here.
5 posted on 01/01/2003 11:42:29 AM PST by larryjohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Nuke'm Glowing
Reese is a terrific columnist.

I can't recall any instance where he's evidenced an disdain for the military. Since I've spent a fair chunk of my life in the service (including ground combat) and regularly read Reese's column I think I'd recall if he had.

As far as the Bush family goes, I think Reese would agree with me that selecting Bush as his VP was Reagan's biggest, most lasting and unforgivable mistake. Had Reagan selected almost anyone else his VP would have gone on to eight more years of conservative leadership in the White House, the Clintons would still be in Arkansas and we wouldn't have witnessed the morphing of the term Rockefeller Republicanism into Compassionate Conservatism.

6 posted on 01/01/2003 12:17:03 PM PST by caltrop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: George Frm Br00klyn Park
I always thought Reese was Libertarian, just from reading his articles. I know he often quotes my 12th cousin, President George Washington, so I like THAT about him! I greatly admire my cousin, father of our country.
7 posted on 01/01/2003 12:36:03 PM PST by buffyt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: George Frm Br00klyn Park
I don't believe I read any article anywhere with which I am in grater harmony than this. Well said, Charlie Reese!
8 posted on 01/01/2003 12:41:50 PM PST by The Duke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: George Frm Br00klyn Park
Glad you brought that up !

Charley Reese is hated by some on this site because he has had the guts to say ( in effect ) : Look: Israel is an ally, and, generally speaking, a good one; but that does not necessarily mean the USA and Israel should be taking long, warm showers together.

They have their agenda, and we have ours, and that's the way it should be.

We should not try to use them as a cat's paw , and we should not feel obliged to act as one for them.

To a few of our Freepers, this amounts to Anti-Semitically motivated treason.

If this be treason, make the most of it !

9 posted on 01/01/2003 12:54:47 PM PST by genefromjersey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buffyt
I greatly admire my cousin, father of our country.

Does that make you the second cousin if our country?

10 posted on 01/01/2003 1:02:49 PM PST by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Nuke'm Glowing
"Charley [Reese] is a bleeding heart socialist liberal who hates our military..."

What Charley Reese are you talking about? Are you thinking of Charlie Rangel maybe? I've never read a Reeese column that could be categorized as you do.

11 posted on 01/01/2003 1:10:58 PM PST by NewLand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: caltrop
During the great voting controversy of 2000 where Algore was blocking the military votes, Mr. Reese was on Channel 13 in Tampa suggesting that the military voters had plenty of time to vote and just because the mail was "slow" that no candidate should be penalized by "late arriving" ballots. He directly stated on that program in November of 2000 that he thinks Algore had a right for a special "recount" in those counties and that the military votes were late so shouldn't be counted. Do not trust this individual. He is a socialist in sheep's clothing, anti-gun, and very anti-freedom. But if you want to believe otherwise, I won't stop you from bleeting with the rest of the sheep.
12 posted on 01/01/2003 2:30:16 PM PST by Nuke'm Glowing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NewLand
Hear him speak in person. And listen to him on the local Orlando radio stations when he feels the need to be heard. He's a freakin socialist.
13 posted on 01/01/2003 2:31:23 PM PST by Nuke'm Glowing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Are you at all familiar with Charley Reese's column? He is a man that I admire very much. I had the pleasure of hearing him speak at the annual convention of The League of the South back in the fall of 2001. You could learn a lot from regular reading of his columns. But then you may be beyond the point where you could benefit from them. Anyway, in a spirit of benevolence, occasioned by the beginning of a new year, I highly recomend them to you in the hope that they might bring you enlightenment and liberation from the obsessive hatred that seems to dominate your life.
14 posted on 01/01/2003 2:52:17 PM PST by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nuke'm Glowing
You, sir, have no idea what a socialist is. Believe it or not, having a low opinion of Bush does not make one a socialist. Unlike you, Reese actually examines what Bush does, and he does not like what he sees, precisely because Bush is pushing socialist policies, whilst pretending to be a conservative. To you, "socialist" is just a dirty little swear word that you use to smear people you don't like.

I happen to believe that "socialist" has a pretty concrete meaning, indicating a tendency towards big government, centralist policies, policies which Bush loves, and which Reese hates. That makes Bush the better target for the label "socialist", by far. There's nothing in Reese's writings that is remotely "socialist" - if anything, he sometimes goes too far in the anti-socialist direction. Not that that is necessarily a fault, mind you.

Go ahead and spout your ignorant, ranting nonsense. You will get socialism, in spades, and get it good and hard, precisely because you can't learn to see past the political labels to discern the political realities hiding beneath them. You are a sterling example of everything that is wrong with the GOP, and Bushbot "conservativism".

15 posted on 01/01/2003 3:08:28 PM PST by Vast Buffalo Wing Conspiracy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Nuke'm Glowing
Charlie Reese anti-gun? You, sir, are either confusing Reese with a completely different person, are you are a conscious and unrepentant liar.
16 posted on 01/01/2003 3:10:21 PM PST by Vast Buffalo Wing Conspiracy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Nuke'm Glowing
I tend to agree with you about Charley.
He has had many truly great columns over the years where I just wanted to applaud and say, "Thank God for Charley Reese." But I have read a few of his columns recently that made me wrinkle my brow in suspicion. In the column above he admits to being registered as a Democrat. There is absolutely no excuse for that.
17 posted on 01/01/2003 3:27:19 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Nuke'm Glowing
I read Reese all the time and, while you may be right about his views on absentee ballots (I'd be disappointed in him if you are) you are absolutely wrong in characterizing Reese as anti-gun and anti-freedom. He's made it abundantly clear in the columns I've read that he's very pro-gun and very pro-freedom.

I agree with an earlier poster that Reese's views on the Israeli situation have the Israel First crowd all hot and bothered. If that's your angle - save your breath. IMHO, except for oil, the entire Middle-East isn't worth an American sprained ankle.

18 posted on 01/01/2003 3:43:15 PM PST by caltrop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Nuke'm Glowing
Charley Reese is a lot of things but Anti-Gun is NOT one of them.

As for his other views: -- Charlie is all talked out.
19 posted on 01/01/2003 3:52:22 PM PST by JoeSixPack1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: George Frm Br00klyn Park; First_Salute; joanie-f
"If we're going to get stuck with socialism, I'd prefer it be called socialism rather than "compassionate conservatism."

A lot of truth in that statement...

20 posted on 01/01/2003 3:55:03 PM PST by snopercod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vast Buffalo Wing Conspiracy
Uh, no. I believe the phrase "socialist" is if the shoe fits then you can wear it. Reese writes to one audience and speaks to another. Hearing him at one seminar and on the local radio and television when he elects to spout off convinced me of this.
As for the "Bushbot" comments, you must have me confused with one of the morons that thinks he can do no wrong. I do not trush the Bush family as far as I can throw them. The recent events since 9-11 have only solidified my views.
Mr. Reese's anti-Israel stance is part and parcel to his well remembered views one morning on the Mark Larsen show locally about 3 months ago where he said that the U.N. is much better equipped to deal with the administration of any nation that has internal political problems. When asked by the host if that theory applied to the U.S. also, Mr. Reese refused to answer (typical liberal in sheeple's clothing response). I will spout what I wish and have for months. When someone hides as a conservative, but is really something else, I believe in calling that individual out. Mr. Reese and Mr. Bush deserve nothing less. They are equal and similar in many ways. And that should terrify anyone who believes that the U.S. Constitution should be the only law for the running of our government. In other words, I just warn everyone, don't believe everything someone writes in a newspaper column, just as I would against everything written on FR. Listen to the person speak in person. Then the true colors come out.

And no, I'm not a member of the GOP. I quit the party in 96. That's when they showed their true colors to me. I was a member of the "L" party (I won't say their name) but after dealing with those idiots on a local level, I realized the "L" stood for "losers". They have no clue about winning office in the state of Florida. And that really is a shame because many of their views are quite consistent with mine. Don't assume anything about my politics just because I slam you bird dropping readings of Mr. Reese. I am probably much more conservative than you, and understand the what and why of how the GOP and the alleged "conservative" movement have allowed and encouraged the growth and merger of government and private industry into the socialist utopia that so many of these liberals dream of. Just like 1934.
21 posted on 01/01/2003 6:23:46 PM PST by Nuke'm Glowing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: JoeSixPack1
Mr. Reese has openly called for restrictions of gun ownership and registration on local Orlando talk radio when he pops out of his gopher hole to speak. He won't dare say it in the paper because it would bring a firestorm on to that liberal rag he writes for.
22 posted on 01/01/2003 6:25:02 PM PST by Nuke'm Glowing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: caltrop
Having done my time in the Middle East, I concur. But Israel is the only "ally" (what a term that is for that region) we really have there, so until we find someone better or follow my suggestion and pave the entire region after nuking it, what else are we to do. I really don't care for Mr. Reese's views because he shows a degree of anti-Semitism that makes me think he has a large agenda when he writes on that subject. As to the Anti-gun angle, refer to my other post above. He is one of those people you can not trust. His appearance on the O'Reilly "Factor" was quite an illustration into the real Charley Reese. IMHO, he's as phoney as Bush, and that's what bothers me. His views have always been fashioned to the audience he writes for in that God awful liberal rag in Orlando. I see no change when I hear him in person, as he plays to the audience, and shows his true colors.
23 posted on 01/01/2003 6:29:33 PM PST by Nuke'm Glowing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Nuke'm Glowing
http://chezjacq.com/reese_010503.htm

Gun-control elitists hate, fear common people
Charley Reese

May 3, 2001

Probably no subject generates more lies and deliberate distortions of the facts than gun control.

It's easy to understand once you comprehend that the motivation is to disarm the common citizens of the United States. The talk may be about crime or safety or children, but the goal is to disarm the common citizens.

Thomas Jefferson explained that desire when he said people always fall into one of two categories no matter what the age or what they call themselves. There are those who trust and cherish the people and those who hate and fear the people.

It is the elitists, who hate and fear the common people, who are behind the gun-control movement. Now let's look at some facts compared to lies.

Most Americans have been brainwashed into believing that we're the most violent and crime-ridden people on Earth. Not so. In fact, a new survey involving 34,000 people in 17 industrialized countries published by the Dutch Ministry of Justice shows the opposite. You can be sure America's anti-gun news media will not give this study much publicity.

The nations that report the highest percentage of crime victims are indeed those that have virtually banned private gun ownership. In descending order they are Australia, England and Wales, Scotland, Finland, Northern Ireland, France and the Netherlands.

The United States ranks eighth out of 17.

As legitimate scholars have shown time and again, there is no correlation between gun ownership and crime except often an inverse one -- the fewer private guns, the more crime.

As for gun safety, the disarmers have grossly exaggerated that. The facts are that the National Safety Council has shown that in 1998, accidental firearm deaths for children from birth to 4 years old was 30; for children 5 to 14, there were 80 deaths. Accidental firearm deaths are at the bottom of the list of children's fatalities. The obvious answer is safety instruction, but you will notice that most of the gun-control crowd opposed gun-safety instruction. Ask yourself why they do that.

As for those numbers they cite, so many kids killed every day by guns, they get those by counting everybody 19 and younger as a "child" and by including accidents, suicides and crimes. Gang-bangers who shoot each other are "children who are victims of guns."

Another huge lie is that they claim to be politically powerful. No, it's the same elitists who have a lot of left-wing money from foundations, but if you will check the last presidential election, you will see that the National Rifle Association kicked their rear ends. No less an expert than Bill Clinton blamed Al Gore's defeat on the NRA.

He should have said America's gun owners. Many a Democrat in states such as West Virginia, Tennessee and other rural areas would rather keep their firearms than their Democratic voting records.

The NRA, so slandered by the elitist gun-control crowd, is, in fact, the nation's premier gun owner's organization. It was founded by a group of National Guardsmen to promote marksmanship and over the years has been praised by presidents and generals alike.

It is pro-law and order, pro-police, pro-gun safety and pro-responsible gun ownership. Now 4 million strong, I can most heartily recommend it as an organization to join if you are concerned about retaining America's traditional freedom to keep and bear arms.

Our Founding Fathers were proud that Americans were trusted with arms because they knew that only when people are armed could they truly be thought of as free citizens.

And that's where the circle closes. Those who want to deprive you of your right to keep and bear arms are intending to deprive you of your freedom, period. Like the criminals their policies encourage, these elitists know that it is always best to disarm victims before you enslave them. I've seen this elitist fear among my own colleagues.

Years ago, when Florida's right-to-carry law was only a bill in the Legislature, some of my journalistic colleagues were practically hysterical: Why if you let people carry firearms, there will be shootouts on every street corner and in the supermarket checkout lines.

Having grown up with people who carried firearms without the government's permission, I was genuinely mystified. I had to wonder if they lived in total isolation. Do they not know the American people? Do they really think their fellow citizens are stupid and crazy?

Unfortunately, for many elitists, the answers are yes.

Of course, the facts proved them wrong. Florida has had a right-to-carry law for years, and the crime rate has gone down. People wielding their own firearms have saved many innocent lives. In some cases, they have done so by also saving the taxpayers the expense of arrest, trial and imprisonment.

Reach Charley Reese at 407-420-5315 or creese@orlandosentinel.com

Copyright © 2001, Orlando Sentinel

Do you mean that Charley Reese or is there another?
24 posted on 01/01/2003 6:35:27 PM PST by JoeSixPack1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: JoeSixPack1
Same one. Like I said, what he writes is one thing, what he says is another. Which one do you believe?
25 posted on 01/01/2003 6:38:55 PM PST by Nuke'm Glowing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Nuke'm Glowing
Charley Reese is not on my favorite list at all, but my belief is only intended for me. Yours is welcome. But, Mike Thomas, who just fell in love with JEB, is and always will be twice the lefty Reese was.

Reese loves Palestinians. Reese loves his Social Security check.

Reese also loves his guns.

I spent 27 years in Orlando watching and reading these two clowns. I will admit I missed a lot of what they had to say, happily too. Maybe you got them crossed?
26 posted on 01/01/2003 6:45:23 PM PST by JoeSixPack1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Nuke'm Glowing
Sheesh, make that 17 years not 27. I;m old, but every decade counts. sorry. :-)
27 posted on 01/01/2003 6:47:06 PM PST by JoeSixPack1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: JoeSixPack1
I wish I had them crossed. When I lived there, he seemed decent. But then Reese has changed in the last 2 years and it is very disturbing. Mike Thomas should have been horsewhipped years ago, but that's another story in and of itself. I can't stand either to be honest, especially after alot of Reese's radio and television appearances.
28 posted on 01/01/2003 7:07:16 PM PST by Nuke'm Glowing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: snopercod
Bump.
29 posted on 01/05/2003 5:46:47 PM PST by First_Salute
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson