Conflicts Of Interest - Charley Reese

King Features Syndicate ^ | 1/1/2003 | Charley Reese

[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.

[Nuke'm Glowing]

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.

[Nuke'm Glowing]

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.

[Nuke'm Glowing]

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.

[JoeSixPack1]

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?

[Nuke'm Glowing]

Same one. Like I said, what he writes is one thing, what he says is another. Which one do you believe?

[JoeSixPack1]

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?

[JoeSixPack1]

Sheesh, make that 17 years not 27. I;m old, but every decade counts. sorry. :-)

[Nuke'm Glowing]

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.

[First_Salute]

Bump.