Category: Society

  • Unequal protection

    Reading the Washington post this morning, I stumbled over an article by Roberts Barnes who fawns over Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s flaunting the conventions of the Supreme Court by reading her decision aloud in a case in Alabama;

    The court ruled 5 to 4 that Lilly Ledbetter, the lone female supervisor at a tire plant in Gadsden, Ala., did not file her lawsuit against Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. in the timely manner specified by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    * * * * *

    Speaking for the three other dissenting justices, Ginsburg’s voice was as precise and emotionless as if she were reading a banking decision, but the words were stinging.

    “In our view, the court does not comprehend, or is indifferent to, the insidious way in which women can be victims of pay discrimination,” she said.

    Last month, Ginsburg rebuked the same five-justice majority for upholding the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act and for language in the opinion that she said reflected “ancient notions about women’s place in the family and under the Constitution — ideas that have long since been discredited.”

    Now, I’m no lawyer, although I work in the law field, sort of, but this sounds like Justice Ginsberg is making her decisions based on Constitutionally-prohibited grounds. According to the Fourteenth Amendment;

    Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Now the 14th Amendment prohibits giving a longer lawsuit filing period for women than for men, yet based on her experience as a woman, she seems to think that she’s an expert on these things called “women’s rights” – what that means, I have no idea. I’ve done a search of the Constitution and no where can I find the word woman, or a variation thereof. The closest thing is the 19th Amendment;

    The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

    It made us all equal in the voting booth, it didn’t take away any men’s rights and it gave equal rights to women. 

    So can someone tell me what, exactly, the Constitution guarantees women that it doesn’t guarentee men, or what it guarantees gays and not straights. Where are these “[fill in the name of your particular group of malcontents here] rights”?

    And someone tell me how a justice on the United States Supreme Court, the court which, since Marbury v. Madison in 1803, has had the responsibility to interpret the CONSTITUTION as it applies to protections of citizens from the government, can make decisions based on extra-constitutional information.

  • Jimmy, Cindy, Joe and Hugo (Updated 5-29)

    Fox News is broadcasting that Adam Housely (who live blogged the protest), on the scene in Caracas, Venezuela is reporting that the crowds fairly peacefully protesting Chavez’ decision to shut down the popular, dissenting RCTV television station are being fired upon by federal troops with rubber bullets, tear gas and shot guns are being fired over their heads. The reporter also said that the crowd wasn’t budging – which means that if Chavez intends to squelch this dissent he will have to ratchet up his response.

    Chavez claims were that RCTV was engaged in “subversive” activities. How many times have we heard that phrase used in the last 50 years?

    Housley made the point that international media is the only way to get word out about Chavez now because he’s shut down the last dissenting media voice in Venezuela. Housley also displayed what appeared to an expended low-base 12-guage shotgun shell he claims he recovered from the ground after federal troops fired it in the air (the video of Housley appeared to be via cell phone).

    There’s nothing to link here yet, just some background in a generic AP story on Fox News;

    Inside the studios of RCTV — the sole opposition-aligned TV station with nationwide reach — disheartened actors and comedians wept and embraced in the final minutes on the air.

    They bowed their heads in prayer, and presenter Nelson Bustamante declared: “Long live Venezuela! We will return soon.”

    Chavez says he is democratizing the airwaves by turning the network’s signal over to public use.

    Germany, which holds the European Union presidency, expressed concern that Venezuela let RCTV’s license expire “without holding an open competition for the successor license.” It said the EU expects that Venezuela will uphold freedom of speech and “support pluralism.”

    I’m sure Chavez is quaking in his stumpy little boots having seen the Euro-weenies “expect” all kinds of civilized behavior in the last few years.

    My question is how do Jimmy Carter, Cindy Sheehan and Joe Kennedy feel about their pal, Hugo now? Will they rush out to condemn, not only the poor treatment of protesters, but the silencing of opposition – which is a basic human right according to our own traditions. 

    I’d guess not. The Left in the United States kept silent about Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, even North Korea for several decades. I’m waiting for evidence that our own administration has done things worse than Chavez has done. I guess the authors of the Black Book of Communism will be able to write a Hugo Chavez chapter, now. And Joe, Jimmy and Cindy will go down in history as Chavez’ enablers.

    Because, why should the Left acknowledge that socialism is a morally bankrupt philosophy that runs counter to basic human rights?

    A-ha! found the story at that CNN place. Must be new network, I’ve never heard of CNN before.

    National Guard troops fired tear gas and rubber bullets Monday into a crowd of protesters angry over a decision by President Hugo Chavez that forced a critical television station off the air.

    University students blocked one lane of a major highway hours after Radio Caracas Television ceased broadcasting at midnight and was replaced with a new state-funded channel. Chavez had refused to renew RCTV’s broadcast license, accusing it of “subversive” activities and of backing a 2002 coup against him.

    Two students were injured by rubber bullets and a third was hit with a tear gas canister, said Ana Teresa Yepez, an administrator at Caracas’ Metropolitan University. She said about 20 protesters were treated for inhaling tear gas.

    The new public channel, TVES, launched its transmissions with artists singing pro-Chavez music, then carried an exercise program and a talk show, interspersed with government ads proclaiming, “Now Venezuela belongs to everyone.”

    Got news for ya, pal. Venezuela only belongs to Chavez. Criticize him and see for yourself.

    With her usual clarity, The Anchoress picks apart the media’s coverage of Chavez’ “liberation” of the Venezuelan people from the truth.

    Update: Apparently, Chavez is in the process of tossing out the international press, too, according to AP:

    Venezuela said Monday it was filing charges against US cable network CNN for linking President Hugo Chavez to Al-Qaeda, and against a Venezuelan TV network for encouraging Chavez’s assassination.

    I guess it was only a matter of time.

    Not surprisingly, we read at the Daily Kos, (via Little Green Footballs) that the American Left – who like to call themselves “liberals” and “progressives” and the true defenders of human and civil rights, the inheritors of the Jeffersonian legacy – support Chavez’ actions of the type Thomas Jefferson had the foresight to preempt in the very first amendment.

    I guess the Left forget that our Constitution’s Bill of Rights was written to protect the minority from the heavy-handed majority in just such circumstances. And that the Constitution protects all citizens from government. It’s not to protect government from criticism – and the Declaration of Independence was a universal declaration for the liberty of all people, not just those living in the English colonies, to exercise the rights and protections given us by our Creator.

    It’s not a multiple choice test which has fluctuating correct answers depending on the season or culture.

  • Memorial Day rememberances

    These are the daughters of Timothy (Griz) Lynn Martin taken nearly four years ago on the 10th anniversary of his death in Mogadishu. If you saw the movie or read the book Black Hawk Down, you know Tim’s story and what happened to him there.

    I’d known Tim nearly 19 years when he was killed (we met at the Reception Station, went through Basic, AIT, Basic Airborne School and Camp Mackall together) and I’d never met his family – but thanks to the internet, I found his wife who sent me most of the pictures that are posted at the link above.

    This is from the year before, when I’d finally found him.

    He was probably snickering his ass off seeing me slogging through the mud in the pourin’-ass rain looking for him. But I know he’d have done it for me.

    Rosie O’Donnell calls our troops terrorists, Dick Durbin calls them SS Nazi camp guards, John Murtha calls them murderers, John Kerry says they’re too stupid to know better than to go to war, John Edwards wants to stand on their corpses so he can see above the crowd.

    But there are folks who know the troops only as Dad or Mom, Honey, my Brother or my Sister and my Son or my Daughter. And, perhaps unfairly, those folks pay a higher cost for our personal freedom and peace than most people are willing to think about.

    That’s why, on this Memorial Day, I want to add those who “also serve” as the families of servicemembers to my list of “thankees”.

    There are more Memorial Day tributes at:

    Crotchety Old Bastard

    Flopping Aces

    American Thinker

    Blackfive

    Hang Right Politics by COgirl and Big Mo

    The Opinion Journal

    The Right Wing Nut House

    Sister Toldja (with more links)

    Soldiers’ Angels New York

    The Anchoress (with more links)

    Oh, Hell, most of the links in my Blogroll have stuff – check them all out!

  • It takes an idiot

    According to Fox News Channel, Hillary Clinton, unsurprisingly, is coming for your children. Since you don’t know how to raise your own kids, she’s proposing a Federal pre-kindergarten for your 4-year-old. At a cost of 10 billion bucks;

    “I want every 4-year-old regardless of parental income to have access to high quality pre-K because it not only enhances their academic preparation, they stay in school longer, they have fewer behavioral problems,” the New York senator and former first lady said.

    Clinton said she would pay for the program by closing tax loopholes and eliminating Bush administration programs she disagrees with.

    “There is a lot of evidence that this saves money over the long run and economists and others have validated what experts in early childhood education have told us for a long time,”

    And those “experts” are just slobbering all over themselves thinking about that 10 billion bucks and all of the experimental useless bells and whistles they can buy with it and all of the plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face research they can fund with it. We’ve been hearing for years how all our classrooms needed for kids to learn better was computers – and we’re still surrounded by post-pubescent want-wits.

    Now we find out that the real reason kids are so stupid is because we raised them ourselves for four years without a government program. How the Hell did we reach this point in our history without pre-K – I’m surprised we’re aren’t so damn stupid we’d all fall off the planet.

    Why did I stay in school without pre-K? Hell, my mother didn’t even got to kindergarten – how did she make it through life? I wonder how many of those “experts” attended pre-K.

    It’s been my experience that everyone who ever called themselves an “education expert” is generally a moron. All of the real education experts I’ve ever known were teachers who knew how to shove knowledge into my hermetically-sealed brain-housing-group – and none of them would have considered themselves experts by any measure.

    And I certainly wouldn’t take child rearing advice from Old Elephant Ankles. She raised ONE kid sporadically, and with the assistance of Arkansas State Troopers and the Secret Service. What does she know about parenting or a child’s education? And why should we listen to the old bag? Cuz some journalist once called her the smartest woman in America? I wonder if that journalist went to pre-K.

    The education system in this country is turning out illiterate morons every year and inflicting them on the employers who paid for their shortchanged education. Why should we throw more money down that dark hole and give them more time to indoctrinate our kids into a culture of dependency?

    Mike Bates at Townhall says the same and brings the numbers without all of my emoting.

  • John Doe Protection Act

    As you’ve probably read on other blogs, Congressman Steve Pearce (R-NM) has introduced what is being called the John Doe Protection Act across the internet. Audrey Hudson of the Washington Times has been a real tiger on this whole issue since the Flying Imams started this whole thing last November;

    Muslim religious leaders removed from a Minneapolis flight last week exhibited behavior associated with a security probe by terrorists and were not merely engaged in prayers, according to witnesses, police reports and aviation security officials.
        Witnesses said three of the imams were praying loudly in the concourse and repeatedly shouted “Allah” when passengers were called for boarding US Airways Flight 300 to Phoenix.
        “I was suspicious by the way they were praying very loud,” the gate agent told the Minneapolis Police Department.
        Passengers and flight attendants told law-enforcement officials the imams switched from their assigned seats to a pattern associated with the September 11 terrorist attacks and also found in probes of U.S. security since the attacks — two in the front row first-class, two in the middle of the plane on the exit aisle and two in the rear of the cabin.
        “That would alarm me,” said a federal air marshal who asked to remain anonymous. “They now control all of the entry and exit routes to the plane.”
        A pilot from another airline said: “That behavior has been identified as a terrorist probe in the airline industry.”

    Audrey also warned us last month about the threat to the “John Does” who reported their suspicious behavior;

    A group of imams suing US Airways for discrimination amended their lawsuit this week to target only the “John Doe” passengers who they say are racist and falsely accused them of behaving suspiciously.
        The six imams were removed from a flight in Minneapolis in November for disruptive behavior reported by passengers and members of the flight crew.
        The lawsuit filed earlier this month targeted “passengers who contacted US Airways to report the alleged ‘suspicious’ behavior of plaintiffs performing their prayer at the airport terminal.”
        The amended lawsuit identifies possible John Does as individuals who “may have made false reports against plaintiffs solely with the intent to discriminate against them on the basis of their race, religion, ethnicity and national origin.”  

    Today she’s writing about the legislation introduced by Joe Lieberman in the Senate and Congressman Pearce in the House;

    A bipartisan coalition in the House and Senate is pushing legislation to protect Americans from being sued for reporting to authorities suspicious activity that may lead to a terrorist attack.
        “If you see something, you should say something, and not have to worry about being sued,” said Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican.
        The measure was introduced in the Senate late Friday and is sponsored by Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut independent and chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, along with Mr. Kyl and Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, the panel’s ranking Republican.

         A House version introduced yesterday is sponsored by Rep. Steve Pearce, New Mexico Republican; Rep. Peter T. King, New York Republican and ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee; and Rep. Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania Republican.
        “In a post-9/11 reality, passenger vigilance is essential to security. If we fail to protect passengers that report suspicious behavior, it would be a huge victory for terrorists,” Mr. King said.

    The House legislation is HR 2291 and HR 1640 (this link takes you to thomas.loc.gov, just type in the HR# in the search box to read the bills – they don’t have permanent links). I’ve got a call in to Lieberman’s office to find out the Senate designation that hasn’t been returned yet. The House Resolution 1640 reads;

      (a) In General- An individual shall not be liable for any injury or damages relating to such individual’s qualified disclosure of suspicious behavior. A civil action for damages related to such disclosure may not be brought in any State or Federal court.
      (b) Qualified Disclosure of Suspicious Behavior- For purposes of this section, the term `qualified disclosure of suspicious behavior’ means any disclosure of the allegedly suspicious behavior of another individual or individuals to a Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency or other security personnel that is made in good faith and with the reasonable belief that such behavior is suspicious.

    HR 2991 reads;

      Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. IMMUNITY FOR REPORTING SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOR.

      (a) In General- Any person who, in good faith, makes, or causes to be made, a voluntary disclosure of any suspicious transaction, activity, or occurrence indicating that an individual may be engaging, or preparing to engage, in an action described in section 3 to any employee or agent of the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Transportation, or the Department of Justice, any Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer, any transportation security officer, or any employee or agent of a transportation system shall be immune from civil liability to any person for such disclosure under any Federal, State, or local law.

    (b) False Disclosures- Subsection (a) shall not apply to any statement or disclosure that the person making the statement or disclosure knows to be false at the time it is made.

     SEC. 2. IMMUNITY FOR MITIGATION OF THREATS

      Any person in receipt of a report described in section 1 who takes reasonable action to mitigate a suspicious action described in section 3 shall be immune from civil liability to any person for such action under any Federal, State, or local law.

     SEC. 3. COVERED DISCLOSURES.

      The actions described in this section are possible or attempted violations of law relating to–

    (1) a threat to a transportation system or the safety or security of its passengers; or

    (2) an act of terrorism (as defined in section 3077 of title 18, United States Code) that involves, or is directed against, a transportation system or its passengers.

     SEC. 4. ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS.

      Any person who is named as a defendant in a civil lawsuit for making a voluntary disclosure described in section 1 or for taking an action described in section 2, and is found to be immune from civil liability under this Act, shall be entitled to recover from the plaintiff all reasonable costs and attorney fees allowed by the court in which the lawsuit was decided.

     SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

      This Act shall take effect on November 20, 2006, and shall apply to all activities and claims occurring on or after such date.

     

    But the Democrats are hot to strip the language from last month’s Transportion bill as reported by Crotchety Old Bastard  and Little Green Footballs. Michele Malkin has more on the bill.

    I expect everyone to call, write, fax, and email your Congressmembers to support these bills.

  • Fear of teaching; another education rant

    Last month, I went off on teachers and education administrators. I got several emails from teachers whose general theme was “not all teachers don’t care”. That may be true, but my general experience with modern “educators” is that enough of them don’t care so that it reflects on the entire profession. Yeah, it’s a stereotype – but most stereotypes are rooted in reality. Just like so few Muslims actually speak out against Muslim terrorists, it’s difficult to not equate one with the other.

    But, this is about teachers. What set me off this morning was a Paul Greenberg piece in the Washington Times this morning about an education superintendent named Roy Brooks in Little Rock, Arkansas;

    “In the latest clash, white parents pack school board meetings to support the embattled superintendent, Roy Brooks, who is black. The blacks among the school board members look on grimly, determined to use their new majority to oust him.”
        So much for the chances of a fair and impartial hearing for Mr. Brooks, the hard-driving school superintendent who came here three years ago with the avowed aim of making this the best-performing urban school district in the country. So he has been slicing away at a bloated bureaucracy, sifting resources to the classroom, trying to raise academic standards and in general educating kids instead of just going through the same old motions.
        All that has shaken up the dead wood and stirred up those who miss the status mediocre quo, notably the teachers’ unions.
        When the union-backed members of the school board became a 4-3 majority after last fall’s elections, it was only a matter of time before Mr. Brooks would have to fight for his job. Because when a man comes to town with a dream, it doesn’t take long for the killers of the dream to appear, too.
        This isn’t really a fight over race but over power. It’s a fight over what education ought to be about: learning or political patronage.

    There’s more to this story, of course. Some of the school board members have been threatening other administration principals with the loss of their jobs if they continue to support Brooks and his reforms according to an AP story;

    Brooks said in his lawsuit Mitchell had couriers deliver letters to nine administrators telling them their jobs might change as the result of hiring a new superintendent and she asked them to refrain from acting to undermine the board’s charges against Brooks. Daugherty talked to Mitchell about the letters that day, according to the lawsuit.

    Eisele said he could not determine Mitchell’s intent in sending the letters, but called it “objectively threatening.”

    In her statement Thursday night, Mitchell defended sending the letters.

    “Intimidation was never my intent, but quite the opposite,” Mitchell said.

    And why would this problem crop up this year? Well, political power;

    This year, a federal judge also found the district could be released from court supervision, as it was substantially complying with a 1998 desegregation plan. That comes along with the 50th anniversary of the Central High crisis, when then-Gov. Orval Faubus called out the National Guard to stop nine black students from entering the school. President Eisenhower ultimately nationalized the state troops and sent the 101st Airborne to enforce a court’s order.

    Brooks is reducing the number of union positions in his administration and increasing the amount of money being spen on actual teaching – that doesn’t sit well with the unions, of course. They (the unions) want their newly elected majority on the school board to have more say in how the district’s money is spent – the same kind of administration that caused the federal courts to supervise the district nine years ago. 

    This kind of goofy crap happens everyday all over the country. New York State, thirty years ago, had the best education system in the country – high school graduates breezed through most colleges after getting a new York State education. I’m no rocket scientist, but after graduating from the New York education system in 1974, I CLEP’d out of my first year of college without a lick of studying. Now, 15% of New York high school graduates spend a portion of their first year of college in remedial writing, math and reading courses.  Even Little Chuckie Schumer recognized this problem back in 1999;

    Beginning this school year, New York high school students will be required to pass Regents exams in English in order to graduate. Had those exams been implemented last school year, roughly 25% of New York twelfth-graders would have failed to graduate from high school.

    But Chuckie’s solution was to throw money at teachers – more money to pay them for a job they should already be doing. If they won’t do the job at $20/hour, why would I expect them to do it for $30/hour?

    We are losing entire generations of children every year that this piss poor process continues. Schools don’t teach, they create drones that mouth empty platitudes and demand respect (that they don’t have to earn – just like their grades) and high-paying jobs (at which they suck).

    The District of Columbia spends nearly $20,000/year/student, and they’ve created a generation of security guards. The most sought-after jobs in the District is that of rent-a-cops to harrass people trying to conduct business in the countless Federal buildings with mindless searches (one guard tried to prevent me from entering a building because I couldn’t get a dialtone on my cellphone a few days after 9-11 – how many cell phones have dial tones?).

    John Stossel wrote last year in RealClearPolitics;

    The unions use their clout to fight against the interests of the best teachers. Union leaders make sure the teachers who work hardest don’t get raises or bonuses. Everyone with the same seniority and credentials must be paid the same. That guarantees that no teacher will take home a dime for making extra sure that students learn. Joel Klein, who as New York’s schools chancellor runs the country’s largest public-school system, put it this way: “We tolerate mediocrity, and people get paid the same whether they’re outstanding or whether they’re average or, indeed, whether they’re way below average.”

    Klein said that out of 80,000 teachers, only two have been fired for incompetence in the past two years.

    That’s tolerating mediocrity – and that’s what keeps our kids from getting the education they need – not the lack of money. Teachers who don’t join the unions are just as guilty – the only way to change the unions’ grip on our children is from the inside since we can’t depend on the courts and the feds (in the form of the union shills at the Education Department) to protect us.

    Honestly, I do think it’s racist that white Leftists have trapped Black innercity families in a cycle of dependence with a half-education system. And teachers, across this country who’ve bought into the mediocre performance of their so-called profession, are at fault. Generally, teachers are on the bottom performance rung of college graduates, they love those long vacations and those four-hour workdays. Please, don’t bother boring me with that “all the work I have to do at home grading papers, blah-blah-blah”. Everyone works more hours than they’re paid – that’s life when you call yourself a “professional”. But teachers don’t know about life, do they? They’re so sheltered from real life, they even marry each other.

    And they think that getting a student to put a condom on a banana is fulfilling work. If teachers really cared about children, children would be better educated. There’d be no excuses, there’d be productive citizens and I wouldn’t have anything to write about today.

  • Just one question

    So, I’m just getting my daily diet of blogs and reading Michele Malkin’s report of Cuba defending Michael Moore’s schlockumentary “Sicko”. Apparently Moore went to Cuba to prove how much better the healthcare system is in Cuba than the US. Of course, given Moore’s record of manipulating the truth, I doubt anyone would believe Moore if he set out to prove rain is actually water.

    Regardless, I’m just wondering if anyone can tell me, if the Cuban healthcare system is so good, why did Castro need to import a doctor from Spain when he was stricken ill this last winter? Just wonderin’ that’s all.

    Read the rest of Michele’s post about real censorship and Rob at Say Anything on the same subject.

  • Be. Know. Do.

    The United States is not a democracy – we are a representative republic. If we were a democracy, our days would be filled with voting on various issues – everyday would see a new round of referendum votes between reading about the issues of the day. Instead, we elect representatives to keep up on legislation and do our voting for us and make our laws.

    We also elect a leader of our government to execute our laws. So every two years we have a voice in who we want to write and choose our laws, and every four years we choose a leader to execute those laws. That’s about the only real voice we have in our government. In between those two, four and six year intervals, the government is on autopilot – our autopilot controls are in the Constitution. The Constitution keeps those electees on track and protects us from them.

    Pretty easy to understand isn’t it? But it ain’t happening these days. The whole key is that we elect a leader – but too many of our two dozen Presidential candidates on both sides don’t understand the concept of leadership. They stick their fingers in the air, check the wind direction and charge off in the direction of the prevalent breeze. And that’s the real reason American stature has suffered over the last few decades.

    In the Army, we all learned basic leadership from the Army Regulation 6-22 (AR 6-22), which was built around the simple phrase “Be. Know. Do.” which the 6-22 describes like this;

    Army leadership begins with what the leader must BE, the values and attributes that shape a leader’s character. Your skills are those things you KNOW how to do, your competence in everything from the technical side of your job to the people skills a leader requires. But character and knowledge while absolutely necessary are not enough. You cannot be effective, you cannot be a leader, until you apply what you know, until you act and DO what you must.

    Get that? Can you apply that simple concept to any of the current crop of Presidential-wannbes? More than likely not. Too many want to BE whatever they think the majority of the voters want them to be, not themselves. They only want to KNOW what people think are important, and they only want to DO what the majority of people want them to do.

    Lyndon Johnson started his presidency as a leader – he decided that we had to roll back communism and he decided to begin roll it back in Vietnam. But then the politician in him took over and when the war became unpopular, he decided that he was a political liability to his party and chose not to run in the ’68 election – admitting that defeat was more politically expedient than actually fighting the communists and turning back the lesion on mankind. Johnson fell back on his experience as a politician making decisons based on the well-being of his party instead of the well-being of his country.

    Ronald Reagan was a leader. He decided to roll back communism and stuck to his guns for the entire eight years of his term – despite his detractors. The whole world called him a cowboy, protesters worldwide make caricatures of him and called him a jackbooted Nazi. The press called him “Rambo” and a drooling idiot, but despite all of the pressure against him, President kept doing what he thought was right. He embodied the values he wanted the world to see in our nation, he knew the issues, he knew the enemy, he knew our strengths and weaknesses, and he did what he knew had to be done – and kept doing it in the face of criticism. And he knew how to pick his fights – even fights with the people on his own side of the aisle.

    George W. Bush is a leader. He’s continued to carry the fight to the Islamists despite the massive criticism of him and his policies. He embodies our values, he’s a perfect representative of this country. He knows that our enemy won’t surrender, so he hasn’t surrendered. And he’s always done what’s best for the country despite the fact that only 30% of the people still support him. He’s doing the right thing as a leader with little regard what’s being said about him, or the party. He’s doing the right thing for the country. You may not agree with every decision he makes, but you pretty much know how he’s going to decide on any issue put before him – he’s consistent and dependable.

    Contrast that to Bill Clinton’s presidency; Clinton didn’t lead, he stuck his unclean finger in the air and said the things people wanted to hear. He was wildly popular (if you can believe the polls) but he accomplished nothing. By the end of his term, Al Gore was running on Clinton “accomplishments” that the administration had to be dragged towards by the Republicans. To this day, you can still hear Democrats talking about their “fiscal responsibility” and Clinton’s successful welfare reforms. Hell, he refused to sign two previous welfare reform bills, but finally was forced to sign before the 1996 and became the only campaign promise he kept.

    But, back to the present; look at the presidential wanna-bes. Hillary Clinton has decided that the best thing for her campaign is to call for rescinding the vote for force against Hussein – a political decision based on the cacophonous cry from the Left for Clinton to surrender to Islamists, not on our national security. That’s not what a leader would do. She is definitely not what I would call sterling as far as her character goes, either. Where were those FBI files all of those years?

    Rudy Giuliani is no different. His answer to the abortion question in the Republican debates the other night wasn’t the answer a leader would give. He came down firmly on both sides of the issues in one sentence – instead of making a clear statement that didn’t require an analyst to tell us what he meant. He gave a politician’s answer – not a leader’s answer. And someone who’d cheat on their wife while he was supposed to be doing the people’s business isn’t my idea of a leader, either. If he’d cheat on a woman to whom he’ made a solemn vow, what would make him keep his word to the People to whom he’s made a solemn vow?

    The last time we elected someone directly from Congress to the White House was Lyndon Johnson – a career politician who ended his career by throwing himself on his sword for purely political reasons. Since then, we’ve mostly elected governors who’ve had EXECUTIVE experience, not political experience. People who have experience making decisions, not people who’ve only cast votes. People who lead.

    The Army says leadership is;

    …influencing people by providing purpose, direction, and motivation while operating to accomplish the mission and improving the organization.

    That’s how I’ll make my decision. Be. Know. Do. Politicians aren’t leaders.