Even the Right thinks something is Wrong

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

Theodore Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star, 149
May 7, 1918

The following is an article I read a few months ago, which. Light appears even from within the castle of corruption! Some Republicans IN THE WHITE HOUSE are now resisting their tyrant king. There is a stirring in the nation as if from a mass of hypnotized peopole coming to. As time goes on it is becoming more and more apparent that this self-proclaimed "compassionate conservative" of a president has a much darker side, and a very different agenda than his pre-written, planned and patterned rhetoric suggests. A few party-line loyalists are waking up to this fact, returning to their founding conservative beliefs, and remembering their first and greatest nemisis: BIG GOVERNMENT! They realise this man Bush is truly a wolf in sheeps clothing. They are realising just how serious he was when quoted to say:


"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck-of-a lot easier, just as long as I'm the dictator."
---Washington, DC, Dec 18, 2000, during his first trip to Washington as President-Elect


The Moderate Independant, a source of news in great brittain produced a wonderful article which reads, in part:

The term "conservative" is used by commentators such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity to describe themselves. It is used by Bush supporters to define themselves. But what really is conservatism? and why are so many true conservatives disgusted by this new breed of Bush/Limbaugh Republicans?
.......................
The old conservative ideal was that of the wise father figure who was charged with the power in society and would do the right thing for his national family. This did not mean gutting infrastructure and slashing and burning the nation to disfunctionality. It meant to act as the wise moderator, balancing the "family's" needs with the means of the nation. Yes, conservatives were the moderators, not the extremists. They were not radicals who sought to take the nation and launch it this way or that. Exactly the opposite, they sought to "conserve" the traditional institutions and social structure. Actions should be taken to fix things as needed, but minimally. Don't create drastic new programs, but don't drastically trash the existing ones either. Just because a family's (i.e. nation's) financial situation goes down a bit, you don't stop feeding the baby and let the roof leak through. Now the feminist era, the free-love era, many of these social upheavals did not sit well with these old, wise father type conservatives. They wanted to maintain the traditional "family values" (beginning to sound familiar?) and social order. Insert Rush Limbaugh and the elder Bush. They proclaimed the Republicans the party of "family values." They took on the "femi-Nazis" who threatened the traditional patriarchal structure. They took on gays, free-lovers, all non-traditional social types. And in doing so, they appealed to the many conservatives who were out there feeling voiceless, frustrated, and unrepresented (much as many liberals and moderates do today.) So, now you have all these traditional-minded, mainly white male conservatives with someone out there giving voice to the thoughts that had been labeled unspeakable. Hearing Rush and Bush, Sr. must have been like being able to exhale for the first time after decades of being forced to hold their breath. However, this being the common ground, the direction Limbaugh, Hannity, Bush, Jr., et. al have attempted to steer these true conservatives does not sit well with those who truly are conservatives - especially those old and wise enough to know what conservatism is (i.e. the patriarchs of the conservative movement.) Yes, they are spoken for socially, but then there was a bait and switch, and politically, they are being misrepresented and their movement hijacked by leaders who are, "appall"ingly, according to true conservatives like the gentleman above, "mortgaging social infrastructure trying to balance annual budgets." Until now, the idea of accepting some coldness towards the family's needs in return for regaining their voice and power was enough to get these conservatives to play along. But now, President Bush and his brand of neo-conservative has taken the coldness or their slash and burn social agenda so far that these good patriarchs are now having to distance themselves, step away from the Limabugh's, Hannity's, and Bushes and ask themselves what sort of good father would let their house and family be so trashed in the name of "balanc(ing) annual budgets," especially when it is clear the only reason annual budgets are so unbalanced is because of overly excessive tax cutting. A paternalist wouldn't care more about corporate profit than his child getting asthma or wife getting emphysema. A paternalist wouldn't agree to a war for oil. A paternalist wouldn't thrash the school system for tax cuts for the wealthy. When this new breed of Limbaugh conservative came on the scene, as we said, the conservatives were ecstatic to finally have a voice. So in droves they helped create "The Republican Revolution" that propelled Gingrich and company to power in 1994. It didn't take long though for true conservatives to see that this new breed of fake conservative was just a wolf in conservative clothing. Gingrich's name became anathema to good American conservatives and the Republicans not only stopped gaining, but lost seats in each of the next two elections. Betrayed, the true conservatives were then left with a choice between a heartless, greed-driven Republican Party and a Democratic Party that fully embraced the American brand of table-turning feminism, that had been emasculated by the "femi-Nazis." The question for good conservatives became what would happen first, would the Republicans get a heart or would the Democrats get balls. Well, the Democrats weren't about to have any candidate who stood up and said, "Let men be men and women be women," or, "American 'feminism' is very anti-feminine; why can't men be men and women be women while we all have equal rights and protections?" It wasn't about to happen, and, in fact, didn't. On the other side of things, the new-Limbaugh breed of Republicans found their solution. Having found their following the first time by lying upon lying upon lying, pretending to be good conservatives when they were truly just hateful greed-mongers playing on conservative disaffection with the social upheaval of the 60's and 70's, the Limbaugh conservatives once again found their lie line. The conservatives were upset with them because they had no heart? Ok, let's say we have a heart. And so, deciding to simply pay dishonest lip service to their base's true concerns, they started calling themselves "compassionate conservatives." And it worked well enough to get the base to trust them once again. The Bush/Limbaugh Republicans rejoiced, thinking they had found their solution. Simply tell the people you are kind, and it calms their concerns, tell the people you are compassionate, that you are doing the right thing, and it allows them to feel better. Once in office, President Bush continued in this vein. The question wasn't what would the best policy be, it was (and is,) "What do the people want to hear?" He won't change his forest bill that opens things up to industry, he will simply give it a name that will calm the good conservatives of his base who demand their government has a heart. He will call it the "Healthy Forests" bill. He will call his air quality rollback the "Clear Skies" act. Only one problem. Conservatives are not stupid - in fact, they are very vigilant in keeping an eye on their government, which they have a predisposition not to trust. And so, the conservatives are falling off in droves and droves, recognizing that President Bush is in no way a true conservative, in no way is he a compassionate paternalist like real conservatives are. They see this new breed of conservative as greedy, destructive wolves once again in conservative clothing.


George W Bush, leader of the Nuclear supersized western free world, now has a 29% overall job approval rating. Some people might consider this poor public image to be merely a 6th year slump. But I am among those who see's this slump as much more than that. Some of us believe that George W Bush was in fact a co-conspirator in the 9-11 attacks, and feel that a 29% backing in the polls is like cornering a very rabid and dangerous dog. They would say that the disapproval rating might entice him into trying yet again try to heroicly rise out of the ashes of a terrorist attack. If the conspiracy theorists are correct, and Neoconservatives are responsible for 9-11, than this administration will do whatever it takes to stay in office. For darkness despises the light, and sin clings to shadows. As long as this administration is under the disguise of doing "what is best for the nation" they will continue to attack in a stealthy and subtle manner. 9-11 launched these men into the power they now have. But now there is a threat of of Neocons losing that power, and it is well within reason that they would consider, plan and execute an event which will lead to the death of thousands more. Predicitons include a nuclear strike to be blamed on Iran. They will kill more of us, because they aren't really guarding us. They are as the false shepherds who did not enter the white house through the gate of the popular vote. They see us as something to be taken, used, disposed of. They do not care for the American people, and exposing them for the wolves they are might incite a confrontation, but much better a confrontation with a visible enemy than to be robbed raped and murdered by a professing friend. George Bush calling himself a "compassionate conservative" is a joke if it is taken lightly, or the most serious and telling in a long string of well documented lies.