Category Archives: Bush

Pardon Me, Mr. President? Et tu, Pat Robertson?

Bush, Christian Right, Crime, Criminal Injustice, Law, Morality

The plenary power of pardon granted to the president is extremely broad.

But so far no word about the possible pardon by Bush of incarcerated Border-Patrol agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean.

The president had set a precedent in the case of Ramos and Compean. For defending their country, and in the process shooting a drug smuggler in the derriere, Bush sicced his bloodhound, U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, on these Border Patrol Agents who, absent a pardon, will remain locked up for over a decade.

Although Bush has yet to pardon Scooter Libby, you’ll recall that he commuted his sentence. Bush had spared his fall guy, Lewis Libby, but locked up these patriotic, heroic agents—Ramos and Compean—ostensibly throwing away the key. No remorse expressed from the Creep-in-Chief in their unjust conviction.

I’ve said it before: Bush would wrestle a crocodile for a criminal alien. Soon into his presidency, I also pronounced George W. Bush bad to the bone.

As have I defended evangelical leader Pat Robertson in the past. But he’s clearly just a cog in the well-oiled, oleaginous, Republican Party machine. Robertson was interviewed today by CNN’s Suzanne Malveaux, who asked him about the pardons.

Robertson put his moral might behind making the case for a Scooter-Libby pardon. Now, as I’ve written, “the ‘crime’ for which Libby was convicted was also the crime for which Martha Stewart went to jail: lying to the FBI. Not for leaking the identity of former (so-called) classified CIA operative Valerie Plame. Richard Armitage did that.”

This was yet another abuse of power by crooked outlaw, US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald.

However, given his role in taking us to war, there was some poetic justice in the conviction of Libby (not that I support such justice).

There was no justice—poetic, or other—in the conviction of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean.

Bush Shoed In Baghdad

Bush, Democrats, Iraq, Just War, War

As CNN reports, Bush traveled to Iraq

To celebrate the conclusion of the security pact, called the Strategic Framework Agreement and the Status of Forces Agreement, the White House said.
The pact will replace a U.N. mandate for the U.S. presence in Iraq that expires at the end of this year. The agreement, reached after months of negotiations, sets June 30, 2009, as the deadline for U.S. combat troops to withdraw from all Iraqi cities and towns. The date for all U.S. troops to leave Iraq is December 31, 2011.

During a news conference, “an angry Iraqi man jumped up and threw shoes at Bush… President Bush … ducked … as Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki tries to protect him Sunday. …Throwing shoes at someone, or sitting so that the bottom of a shoe faces another person, is considered an insult among Muslims.”

If only Muslims confined themselves to shoe tossing. It’s far preferable to bomb throwing.

“The man was dragged out screaming after throwing the shoes.”

Of course, Iraqis, of whom millions have been displaced and tens of thousands killed due to Bush’s war, have every reason in the world to throw boots, baklava, or even bombs at Bush.

Bush responded fast and well: He joked about the incident and asserted that protest was the hallmark of a free society, blah, blah.

As I have observed before, “the Bush administration might just have taken the wind out of the war as an issue for Barack Obama. As it is, Obama had grown weaker on that front, his position increasingly converging with McCain’s. But if Bush finalizes the withdrawal, he will have taken the issue and the decision away from Obama. Strategically, it’s a smart move.”

As for the shoeing Iraqi, I’ve said it again and again: impeachment and war-crimes prosecutions is what this administration deserves for launching an unjust war, an obligation the opportunistic Democrats would never fulfill.

Updated: Your Godless Government At Work

Barack Obama, Bush, Christianity, Economy, Federal Reserve Bank, Government, History, Inflation, Judaism & Jews, The West

The excerpt is from my latest WND column, “Your Godless Government At Work“:

“…Your gut tells you that your government is not only economically bankrupt, but morally bankrupt too—detached from any ethical moorings.

Alas, ‘figures don’t lie, but liars can figure’:

The experts say the complete opposite: The values and virtues ordinary mortals hold themselves to don’t apply to government. The macroeconomic and microeconomic solitudes are governed by separate codes of morality. Never the twain shall meet. Or so the money mavens claim.

Whereas you’ll pay dearly for your profligacy; the government’s recklessness will be rewarded. Whereas your debt will wipe you out; government debt will lift us all up. The latter is ‘stimulating’; the former sapping. …”

The complete column is: “Your Godless Government At Work”

Update (Nov. 29, 2008): At the “Secular Right,” John Derbyshire, also the only interesting writer at National Review Online (there you go, Ilana, making friends again), has written a post about “Your Godless Government At Work.”

I like the way Derb neutralizes me with the “ravishing and brilliant” appellations. Duly subdued. As one of the few intellectually honest, brilliant, paleo-conservatives around, Derb, naturally, always has my attention. (There are quite a few brilliant paleos, but not all are intellectually honest.)

A couple of comments from one secular rightist (me) to another (Derb): Although not religious, I’m a defender of the so-called Judeo-Christian tradition. I’m not hostile to religion (except to Islam, which is a political system).

The main points of Derb’s post are:

Derb: “Any given theology is of zero interest to anyone outside the tribe.”
Ilana: You don’t need to be an able Talmudist to knock that logic down. Islamic theology, for example, is of considerable interest if only in showing naive westerners that it (and its adherents) is incompatible with their creature comforts and their very continuance. Therefore, Islamic theology is of some, limited interest to those outside the Umah.

Derb: Talmud “is all just tribal chanting.”
Ilana: The little Talmud I learned at school I liked and was good at. It’s fun, and doesn’t involve “elucidate[ing] what Rabbi So-and-so meant back in the 13th century.” At least not when studied in a secular school such as the Israeli secondary school I attended. It involved logic and law. A great deal of the logical method—pilpul—through which Talmudic scholars arrived at the law seemed to me to follow logic, and is thus more universal than tribal. Brilliant too.

For the reductionists who whittle down aggregate, Ashkenazi IQ to exogenous factors—breeding and natural selection—I venture that the study of Talmud must have contributed to innervating those dendritic connections in Jewish brains.

As a secular individual, Thomism and the Talmud interest me both as part of Western tradition. Talmud a little more, maybe, for tribal reasons (grin): in the context of my column, my readers (evangelicals) value the Jewish tradition. If I can show that the latter values freedom, why, then I can turn them against their leaders. I can also try and draw religious Jews away from leftism. That’s why I think JIMS’s impetus is important, because it might help save a few Jewish souls from the sins of leftism and convert them to the righteous philosophy of freedom.

So are Judaism’s texts—theological and other—merely a tribal affair? No. Are all the scholars who busy themselves with the respective texts members of the tribe?

(The same goes for the Hebrew Bible. I’m of a generation of secular Jews which knows and loves the Hebrew Bible as a tremendous literary, philosophical, and historical achievement. It’s unique. Those who have studied it in Hebrew, as I have, know the 39 books for the vital, lively (very Jewish), earthy, pioneering, and fascinating works they are. There is nothing stuffy or pompous about the Hebrew Bible, either. Paul Johnson (is he a member of the tribe?) agrees. In A History of the Jews, he writes: “The Bible is essentially a historical work from start to finish. The Jews developed the power to write terse and dramatic historical narrative half a millennium before the Greeks.”)

The central error of anti-religion crusaders is that they consider the Jewish and Christian traditions systems of ideas, denuded of historical context, to be accepted or rejected on the strength or weakness of their intrinsic logic (or lack thereof). Judaism and Christianity, however, are who we are historically (the same is true, unfortunately, of followers of Islam). One can no sooner denounce them than one can disavow history itself.

And that would be irrational.

Beat This, Barack

Barack Obama, Bush, Economy, Foreign Policy, Government

Obama apparatchiks of change like to accuse Bush of starving state programs when in fact he has presided over the greatest expansion of government since Lyndon B. Johnson. The truth is that Bush’s party, the Republicans Party, has always come through as a “reliable engine of government growth.”

Since 2001, reports the Wall Street Journal, federal outlays have increased to the tune of 16 percent on energy, 91 percent on “community development,” 22 percent on highways and mass transit, 57 percent on education, 55 percent on health research, 58 percent on veteran benefits, 51 percent on Medicare, 16 percent on social security, and a walloping 64 percent on national defense.

In case you forget the costs of America’s crumbling empire: economist Robert Higgs has pegged all “defense-related” spending at approximately $1 trillion per year.

Sadly, Barack will best Bush in spades.