;) A NEW BURNS AND ALLEN SHOW

By Jim R. Schwiesow

November 14, 2006 NewsWithViews.com

Those of us old enough to remember the comic act of George Burns and Gracie Allen will recall that the recurring theme of the show was the interaction between a shrewd and astute husband, George Burns, and a simple-minded and intellectually vacuous wife, Gracie Allen. The show provided many hours of merriment for thousands of radio and TV listeners and viewers throughout the United States. I now announce that the country is soon to be introduced to a new Burns and Allen show in an all-new format. It will be called the George Bush and Nancy Pelosi show. I welcome you to view the new king and queen of vaudeville in a brand new serial comedy with an entirely new congressional cast.

George Bush has played straight man to socially debauched Democrats since the day that he first stepped into office. Not possessed of the sapience of a George Burns or the verbal expertise - he has done more to commit to genocide the English language than anyone I know - he has nevertheless stepped forward with craggy countenance and subservient deportment to play fool to the fools. In this regard we have to give tribute to his acting abilities, which rival, if not exceed, those of George Burns. Mr. Bush’s obsequious attention to the political wacko’s of our congressional la la land during his six years as president was not without a purpose, a purpose that I will enlarge upon herein.

I understand that Gracie Allen was possessed of superior intelligence and wisdom, and that her on-stage personality was simply the result of the high quality of her role-playing. Nancy Pelosi on the other hand is naturally possessed of naiveté and a room temperature I.Q. All one has to do is to catch her on the tube to discern that she is not the sharpest stick in the bundle. Actually I am being kind to her with that statement. Like Gracie Allen she also has an on-stage personality and an off-stage personality. And the two diverge significantly. Ever the woman of the common people with disdain for the tax-paying rich in her on-stage personage, she actually lives in capitalist splendor, with a personal wealth of $55 million, in her off-stage reality. It makes one wonder what these nitwits are going to do, and how they’re going to cope, when they have completely destroyed our constitutional republic and are forced to live under the dominance of communistic style despotism. I would imagine that Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy, the Laurel and Hardy of the party of the Democrats, have never contemplated the ultimate consequence of their political stupidity.

The gentleman, who wrote me in behalf of his hero, George Bush, and substituted name calling for articulate discourse, is not going to like the content of this column. A perfectly legitimate and airtight case can be made that George W. Bush deliberately engineered the election debacle, which doomed the continuance in office of many congressional Republicans.

There are Republicans who in their hearts do value the freedoms granted by the constitution, and agonize over the socially repugnant course of the nation. There may be one or two Democrats also; we’ll just have to send out a search party to beat the bushes to find them. The real tragedy is that these people have attached more significance to a slavish commitment to party loyalty than to maintaining the freedoms and liberties wrought by constitutional principles. Their integrity can, and should, be called into question when they have not the courage to stand against the passage of tyrannical laws, which steal the freedoms of U.S. citizens. And if their party, or their president, insists that they capitulate to an ideology, which they know to be wrong and inimical to the best interests of a sovereign nation, they ought to remove themselves from that ideological cesspool, and realign themselves with a party, which better reflects their ethics and their values. If enough would do so a viable and competitive third party could be built and expanded.

I believe, and contrary to what some may think it is my perfect right to do so, that George Bush is extremely pleased by the election slaughter, which sunk the political hopes of so many of his fellow Republicans in congress. Too many of these Republicans had worked in opposition to his goal for a North American Union. Too many were furious over his continual refusal to secure the borders and to bring to a halt an ever- increasing influx of illegal aliens. Too many were angered by his completely dumb insistence on amnesty for law-breaking border intruders, and more than a few were beginning to question the wisdom of his policies in relation to an increasingly casualty ridden war in Iraq. The old adage, which holds that you can’t fool all of the people all of the time was coming into play.

Unquestionably President Bush did everything in his power to contribute to the disaffection and dissatisfaction of the people in regard to these issues, and he did nothing to dissuade them from their ever-increasing anger with their elected Republican representatives. What did he care, they were close to an election and he had two more years to dink with the fate of the nation. In his mind this was their misfortune and his good luck. He reasoned that the Democrats were more attuned to his quest for one world governance, so he opted to throw his lot in with the opposition. I would imagine that as time passes many of the losing Republicans, who were sold out by Mr. Bush, would most likely come to the inescapable conclusion that they were played for suckers, big time.

Some have taken issue with me concerning some of my contentions in previous articles. A very learned gentleman with a constitutional knowledge, which far surpasses mine, wrote and informed me that The Constitution, right or wrong, provided for one man to take control in times of military service, not War. Note: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; Not war, but service is the key.”

As I stated, this man’s credentials are impeccable when it comes to an understanding of the constitution. He also had this to say about presidential abuses of power, “Was there a check on this power? Of course there is. The Constitution provided for the impeachment of the President if he abused any power including the power of the Commander in Chief. Also, we have the right to vote him out of office at the end of his term. Remember that the same paragraph that gives him the role of Commander in Chief also says he has the power to overrule a court and even do away with a ruling the court has imposed except in cases of impeachment of officials. Instead of fighting what he is doing as being unconstitutional, we should be fighting to have a Supreme Court ruling or an Amendment to the Constitution to define the powers of the Commander in Chief more accurately. While Bush has done so many things he shouldn't to drag us further into socialism, his wiretaps and other "Patriot act" moves are all constitutional. As President he couldn't do any of those things but as Commander in Chief he can.”

I have no problem with a program to rid nation of the threat wrought by international terrorism. But, I do have a problem when a president, or anyone else, treacherously misrepresents the true nature of his actions. Ironically we find evidence of a similar kind of treachery in our historical archives. This has been documented, for readers, in an article by Devvy Kidd entitled, FDR and the Pearl Harbor Attack

Now, I know that Saddam Hussein was a tyrant of the most despicable kind. I also know that Kim Jong-il of North Korea and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran are of an equally contemptible disposition. And both of these countries are absolutely identified as having weapons of mass destruction.

Since we are nearly certain that Iraq posed no significant threat to our nation and that Iraq had not the means, or the intent, to launch an attack upon the United States, President Bush could not truthfully support a determination that Iraq was an immediate danger. So he did what most politicians do, he improvised and by subterfuge created the illusion that Saddam was poised for an act of aggression against the United States. Now, in my book this is called lying, and I have a very low tolerance for liars. My Dad taught me at a very early age that to be honest and forthcoming was a virtue, and that to be a liar was contemptible. In my boyhood to lie was to invite a session with the razor strop. God Bless him I am thankful that he instilled this in me. So, if Mr. Bush did not abuse his powers technically, he did so in substance. I submit that prevarication and misrepresentation to gain approval for a clearly uncalled for war indicates a moral deficiency too serious to ignore.

So, now we have an unholy alliance to deal with, a Bush-Pelosi team for socialism and world governance. Look for social reforms that will put the new deal to shame. An amnesty for law-breaking illegal aliens is a certainty, which is a gleeful prospect for Mr. Bush who will then be a step closer to that North American Union that he dreams of. Continuing social depravity, which a Republican majority failed to engage, is now a foregone conclusion with humanist Democrats in charge. Fasten your seatbelts, brothers and sisters; we are in for a rough ride.

© 2006 - Jim R. Schwiesow - All Rights Reserved

Jim Schwiesow is a retired sheriff with 46 years of law enforcement service. He served with the Unites States Army with the occupation forces in post war Berlin, Germany, and has a total of nine years of military service, which includes six years in the U.S. Army Reserve.

His law enforcement service includes: three years in the military police, fifteen years as an Iowa municipal police officer, and twenty-eight years as the duly elected sheriff of Sioux County, Iowa.

Jim has written a number of articles, which have been published in various professional law enforcement journals.

E-Mail: [email protected]