You Can't Compromise With an Empty Head
By James T. Moore (08/09/07)
The dictionary tells us that "compromise" means: a. A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions. b. Something resulting from such a settlement.
Implicit in that definition is, I assume, that those involved in a compromise meet in good faith, work toward constructive solutions, without prejudice, preconceived notions, secrecy, or ulterior motives. Otherwise, in my book, a compromise would be impossible to make.
Government, with its special interests, self-serving agendas, and people in power, will always find compromises difficult to reach. And for that very reason our founders created this government with three distinct branches of power. They knew that with a “collaborative” system of governing designed with checks and balances---a way to check up on each other---no branch could gain a monopoly of power and become a dictatorial threat.
To emphasize the danger of that threat, suspicion of men with hidden motives led John Adams to say: “Whoever would found a state and make proper laws for the government of it, must presume that all men are bad by nature.” And Thomas Jefferson to say: “In questions of power let no more be heard of the confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” And Daniel Webster to say: “There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”
It should, therefore, not be difficult to see how tenuous, and often impossible, it is for two opposing parties of our government to make compromises. It should also not be hard to see how skeptical I was when I read this in the paper: “In seven tumultuous months in power, congressional Democrats have learned to compromise with President Bush, as well as confront him.” Well, we shall see.
Myself, I see no compromises in the offing. Although the democrats claim to be making progress in their promise to change things---“We’ve done a lot of heavy lifting,” says Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid---progress seems to be an illusion. According to Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri, “The president has signed virtually nothing because virtually nothing has gotten to his desk.” Meantime, Bush is confident that, despite his basement-level ratings, he still has enough Republican support to avoid a veto override on bills ranging from farm subsidies and children’s health, to energy and troop withdrawals.
So much for compromises, especially on bills that are forever stuck in the time-warp of partisan stagnancy.
Moving on now to “confrontation with Bush.” This, to top the illusion of a compromise between Congress and the president, is infinitely more detrimental to the nation. The unfortunate “deal” we make with ourselves (through Congress) in attempting to compromise with a total washout of a psychologically-impaired president, and then---bragging about it---is living life with our eyes closed.
In my estimation, there is no compromise possible between right and wrong, openness and secrecy, integrity and deception, truth and lies, good and evil. And any attempt to do so, is contrary to the laws that govern the universe, negates the well-being of mankind, contaminates the mind, and is therefore doomed to failure.
President Bush is not working for the benefit of America. He is, in fact, working for the downfall of our sovereign nation as we know it. And as such, the only way to compromise with him is to forego his impeachment (and possible imprisonment for treason) and instead accept his resignation as President of the United States.
This is a harsh, almost brutal statement, but I do not make it without evidence to back it up.
Why else would Bush consistently refuse to shut down our borders to illegal invasion of our country?
Why else would Bush use up our National Guard to augment his illegal invasion of Iraq, thereby leaving the homeland vulnerable to national disasters like Katrina?
Why else would Bush support laws like the Patriot Act and Homeland Security which eats away our personal freedoms on the supposition that we are in danger from terrorists?
Why else would Bush join with Mexico and Canada in supporting a superhighway that would allow un-inspected trucks to cross our entire country, thus threatening our sovereignty as an independent nation?
Why else would Bush staff his administration with unelected neoconservatives whose agenda is dissolving our sovereign rights by bringing America into a New World Order?
Why else would Bush approve wiretaps to other surveillance systems to circumvent our individual rights of communication guaranteed by the 1st Amendment?
Why else would Bush claim authority that, in violation of the 9th Amendment, he has the authority to spy on U.S. citizens by virtue of executive order, in an “anything I want to do” agenda?
Why else would Bush push freedom and democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, at the same time help erode that same freedom and democracy in his own land?
Why else would Bush refuse to listen to his general’s advice about the lack of progress in Iraq and when they persist, fire them.
Why else would Bush weaken the strength of the Constitution by removing many of the checks and balances
that would prevent him from gaining more dictatorial power?
Why else does Bush ignore the Geneva Convention which provides prisoners with access to legal representation, and then circumvent the rules against torture, and advocate torture as a tool of interrogation?
Why else does Bush bypass the most competent people for his administration, but brings in people who never disagree with him or offer any dissent to his opinions, decisions, or actions?
Why else does Bush ignore our foreign trade deficit and continue to treat China like a preferred nation instead of a dangerous, communist threat to America?
In view if this and other evidence of Bush’s efforts to subvert our nation, savage our sovereignty, let us be run over
by illegal aliens, and make shambles of our Constitutional laws, we must conclude that Bush is an outright liar and a fraud, who pushes his anti-American agenda, regardless of the damage to our nation, the dangers of more wars, and the tragedies of our losses.
How can one even harbor the thought of compromise with a man like this?
(Printer friendly version) Email: James T. Moore
