Skip to comments.Conflicts Of Interest - Charley Reese
Posted on 01/01/2003 9:32:50 AM PST by George Frm Br00klyn Park
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.
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.
Click for latest column on UPI, "Incision Decision in the Senate" (Not yet on UPI wire, or FR.)
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.
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 !
Does that make you the second cousin if our country?
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.
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".
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.
A lot of truth in that statement...