REPUBLICAN ATTORNEYS GENERAL
The Rev. Dana Prom Smith, S.T.D., Ph.D. (3/22/07)

The history of law enforcement by Republican presidents in recent years has been spotty at best, criminal at worst. First, there was John Mitchell, the infamous Attorney General during the Nixon Administration. Intimately involved in the Watergate scandal, he was eventually convicted of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury. He was sentenced to 2 ½ to 8 years in prison. He is the only Attorney General ever to do hard time. He thought civil liberties were a threat to society.

Then, there was Edwin Meese III, who was heavily involved in the Iran Contra Scandal, and was investigated twice for illegal activities by the Office of the Independent Counsel. A close friend of Ronald Reagan as well as the Attorney General during his administration, Meese and Reagan’s defense was incompetence, as in they didn’t know what they were doing.

The Iran-Contra scandal was an illegal transaction, selling anti-tank weapons to the Iranians to fund the right-wing, drug trade Contras in Nicaragua.

Also, Caspar Weinberger, Reagan’s Secretary of State, was indicted for perjury, an indictment growing out of the Iran-Contra scandal. He was pardoned by President Bush I on grounds of his incompetence.

Now, President Bush II’s Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, uses the incompetent defense, claiming ignorance of the sacking of federal prosecutors for political reasons. Some of the prosecutors had convicted Republican politicians for corruption and were investigating other Republican politicians, Congressman Rick Renzi amongst them. Incompetence cannot tolerate competence. They were sacked. Gonzales also thinks civil liberties are a threat to society.

With law enforcement like this, who needs criminals?

Copyright © Dana Prom Smith 2007

COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATIVES
The Rev. Dana Prom Smith, S.T.D., Ph.D. (3/10/07)

Citizens tend to believe politicians during political campaigns although experience doesn’t support such credulity. When President Bush was packaged six years ago as a “compassionate conservative,” many took delight because heretofore the phrase “compassionate conservative” was thought an oxymoron. Hoping against hope many held out hope for compassion amongst the conservatives.

However, subsequent events have proved that the credulity is misplaced, phrases such as “compassionate conservative” and “compassionate Republican” still being oxymorons.

The first big test was, of course, hurricanes Katrina and Rita, laying waste New Orleans and the Mississippi coast. President Bush saw the catastrophe coming and did nothing, even after having been warned that the levees might break. When they came, he was fund-raising in Phoenix where hurricanes don’t happen. Afterwards, he looked down from Air Force One on the devastation but did nothing except several days too late to commend Michael Brown, the head man of FEMA at the time with the words, “Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job.” One test of compassion is being in touch with the situation. Compassion is not remote.

Having unleashed the dogs of war with his invasion of Iraq, neither he nor his principal kennel keeper, Dick Cheney, had noticed the deplorable conditions of wounded soldiers at Walter Reed Hospital. Compassion would have dictated visiting the wounded and maimed and being appalled at the disgusting conditions amongst the recuperating. But alas, no, there is no such thing as a compassionate conservative, much less a compassionate Republican, certainly not a compassionate President.

Copyright (c) Dana Prom Smith 2007

GUN OWNERSHIP AND REGULATION
The Rev. Dana Prom Smith, S.T.D., Ph.D. (3/4/07)

Pat Wray’s article on gun ownership betrays an underlying paranoia about the federal government which may be well-taken after six years of the Bush Administration. Paranoia is not always a sign of psychopathology. My late brother, a professor at Caltech, was once asked to speak to a full-scholarship black student from the poverty-stricken South Los Angeles ghetto about the student’s disruptive behavior. My brother said in full professorial condescension, “You’re acting paranoid,” to which the young man replied, “Hell, Dr. Smith, “you’d be paranoid, too, if you were the only black dude living with all these honkies. They just don’t think I belong here. They scare me.”

Any suspicion of government is well-taken, especially since power corrupts. If people trust the government, they are at cross purposes with our Founding Father who didn’t trust government at all as testified by our checks and balances. However, gun ownership is not the issue, it is regulation.

When he says, he doesn’t want to be melodramatic, he commences a self-righteous melodrama, citing Pol Pot and Idi Amin. He says gun owners don’t train for “guerilla action” or “stockpile exorbitant amounts of ammunition.” The point is that some do, and they make me paranoid. As a former Sg/Maj, Special Troops, they scare me.

Mr. Wray sounds like an executive in a pharmaceutical corporation, telling agreeably purchased politicians to trust the drug companies to regulate themselves. That’s when I really get paranoid. I’m scared of yahoos armed to the teeth, telling me to trust them.

Copyright © Dana Prom Smith 2007