Freudian Attack Dog Puts Bush on the Couch

The lecture reminded me of a bunch of kids getting
together for a hate club meeting about a classmate.

On occasion I listen respectfully to the loyal (?) opposition. This afternoon I listened to a brief lecture by a psychiatrist who wrote a book in 2007 claiming to analyze George W. Bush. I shall not mention the author of the book or its title as I have no confidence in the author and have no interest in promoting this sort of public group masturbation. The book was written in the run up to the 2008 election and was designed clearly to sabotage the American trust in George W. Bush and to tar conservatives for voters. 

The entire thing was filled with Democrat talking points and paraded the entire panoply of logical fallacies. The appearance was a love fest for leftists, stamped as authentic by the author's medical credentials. At one point he called Dick Cheney George W. Bush's penis! Listening to this guy confirmed for me why I find Freudian psychiatrists to be such lovely quacks. Anytime a Democrat wants to criticize a conservative, all he has to do is trundle out a Freudian psychiatrist to call the conservative "cruel" and "mean" and claim he's insane and should be locked away.

When I was studying psychology in graduate school, I attended a lecture by a Freudian. The subject was basically a two-hour whine-fest about the difficulty of keeping patients coming for years-long analysis (and by the way paying huge fees for "analysis"). The Freudians still make a tidy living stroking sick people's egos, helping them blame things on their mothers and fathers. The audience responded with leftist adoration of the author and hatred for the president whom the author called a sociopathic, megalomaniacal, narcissist. All without ever seeing of even meeting the president personally. He claims he doesn't like the DSM IV and doesn't make diagnoses with his patients and then goes on to rattle off his own fantasy of Bush being incarcerated in a psych facility to deal with his cruelty, sadism and the hateful things he has done to the country. If anyone should be looked at by the AMA for malpractice. At the very least, George W. Bush should sue the man for slander. He even trashed Laura Bush for good measure. The audience kept giggling like a bunch of naughty children, totally safe to do so because no one there was going to disagree. It was like a kindergarten level echo chamber.

With all we've learned about the human brain since Freud's day, I think Freud went way off the rails. He did so because he didn't understand how the brain actually works. Freudians have an almost magical approach to how the brain functions. Knowing what I know about brain function a century after Freud, I, like a lot of people, believe Freud's theories to be thoroughly discredited.

As brain research continues, I come to believe more thoroughly as time goes on that Freud barked up the wrong tree and was pretty damned screwed up himself. Unlike most Freudians, I believe in free will. I believe in God. Freud believed in neither. The Freudian analysts I've encounter on the other hand seem to believe that they are God.

If this is the kind of crap our college students are hearing, it's little wonder that the millenials coming up through the university are so thoroughly leftist and so thoroughly vapid. I kind of need a shower after listening to all of that lecture. It was pretty much 100% hate-speech and made up crap. I couldn't believe it. This man admits he was afraid of President Bush and recommends that the whole country needs analysis to recover from the damage he did to our delicate psyches.

Just my opinion,

Tom King © 2018

PS: The good doctor wears a massive handlebar mustache under a bald head which I think is compensation for something. I wanted to smack him. I really did. This supposed "healer" was cruel, nasty, and arrogant. Shame on him.

People Died, The Press Lied

If you weren't alive 14 years ago when two airplanes were flown into the World Trade Center, one into the Pentagon and one into the ground killing almost 3000 perfectly good human beings in a single day, you probably believe George Bush was a lousy president based on what you hear in the media. And by "alive" I mean, fully a grownup with a family, kids, a job and some adult responsibilities. Most grownups at the time expected leadership from our president after that catastrophe.

And we got it.

Other pundits than me, those who pontificate with perfect hindsight, find much to criticize the former president for. I believe they gain this "perfect hindsight" from the fact that their heads have been shoved up or are in the process of being re-inserted into a place from which perfect hindsight is the only possible view available (if only for a short moment before things go dark).

At the time of the attacks, I was watching the new president with interest. My job at the time was writing federal, state and local grants on behalf of nonprofit organizations. About that time, I had spent some months studying the changes that were happening in the federal government.  The president had issued instructions to all departments to take a hard look at their agencies and re-evaluate what they were doing, looking for waste, fraud and corruption. At the time, I thought, "Good for him!"

As president, Bush sent millions in US relief
to fight Aids in Africa and continues
to raise money for the cause today.

Meanwhile, the career bureaucrats in the various departments just about had a collective aneurism. Here was a president telling them to make their departments lean and more effective, rather than to fatten themselves up as much as possible. They were actually asked to spend less than they received and to return any savings to the treasury. The president instructed the human services agencies to create partnerships with nonprofits and faith-based ministries to leverage the power of these agencies to supplement government welfare programs.

It worked too. In East Texas alone, community-based and church-run food banks gave away so much food that food stamp applications dropped dramatically; so much that the feds were able to cut a whopping $800,000 from the Food Stamp agency's budget in just one year in that one region alone. The bureaucrats nearly had a stroke. They began a frantic $200,000 "marketing" campaign to increase food stamp applications again to get their budget back up. At one regional meeting they blamed the budget cuts on church food bank programs.

In the months leading up to 9/11, President Bush, dissatisfied with the security reports he was getting, issued instructions to the CIA to stop telling him what they thought he, the commander-in-chief ought to hear and to start telling him what was actually going on. About this time, I had a sit down supper with a career CIA officer who worked at the bureau in Washington. He was very upset about President Bush's instructions, calling Bush the worst thing ever to happen to this country and to the CIA. The complaint? The president wanted to see raw data, not an "interpreted" version of the data as prepared by Langley. This career spook really believed it would be better if the president were kept like a mushroom by the CIA - in the dark and fed a steady diet of horse manure. That's not how he put it, of course, but that was the upshot.

Of course, what happened nine months into his presidency, rather confirmed Bush's opinion with regard to the quality of information he was getting from his so-called "intelligence" services. Had 9/11 not happened; had the CIA's cadre of Clinton-era bureaucrats done their job better and given the president the information he needed, things might have been very different budget-wise under President Bush. For all intents and purposes, it looked like, in the early months of his presidency that W was planning to follow, not so much in the footsteps of his father, but in the footsteps of his father's old boss - Ronald Reagan.

The "Bullhorn Speech"

As it was, George W. wound up fighting a war that the American people, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks demanded. In the months following the 9/11 attack, sales of American flags went through the roof. Bush's dramatic speech from the rubble of the twin towers electrified a nation. Military recruiters had young Americans lined up in front of their offices to volunteer. President Bush's memorable bullhorn speech united our nation in a way we had not been united since President Reagan called for us to be a "city on a hill" after the dismal and shame-inducing Carter years.

Tragically, believing that no good crisis should go to waste, the career bureaucrats, Democrats and other fans of big government began immediate efforts to refatten the federal budget, tacking new spending for signature Democrat "social justice" programs as a condition of passing spending appropriations for the Afghan and Iraq wars. Don't forget, Saddam had promptly booted out weapons inspectors in the aftermath of 9/11 (after he first did a little dance of joy at the news). Without a way to insure the craziest leader in the Middle East wasn't building nukes, everybody wanted the lunatic taken out - even Democrats.

John Kerry really was serious when he said he was for the war, before he was against it. Once the war was safely underway and the likelihood of Saddam planting a nuke under the Russel Building was dramatically reduced, of course Democrats like Kerry had to turn against the war. How better could Democrats force the president to allow their pet programs to fatten back up, than to hold the war effort hostage?  When, in our naivety, the American people put the Democrats back in control of the Congress in 2006, they went hog wild as we say in Texas. The Democrat driven housing collapse at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ensued and within 18 months, an economy that had been going along pretty well, even with the war effort, was thoroughly in the dumper.

About the only thing that was still going well was the war effort. We'd not had a single terrorist attack on home soil since 9/11, Saddam was swinging from a rope and Ben Laden was huddled in a cave pooping in a bucket. So, of course, that success had to be turned into a failure and W's successor managed to do that quite thoroughly and in short order.

George Bush meeting troops at DFW Airport

Bush talks to local kids while building
AIDS treatment centers in Africa.

And here we sit six years after President Bush with the DNC and their minions in the press blaming him for the 17 trillion dollars in debt the Democrats and President Obama have run up. We're seeing terrorist attacks again on American soil. Everybody in the world apparently hates us even more and, what's worse, they don't respect and fear us anymore either - not after the President's multiple "world apology tours".

And what's Bush doing? Well, he's not criticizing President Obama for one thing, which is the gentlemanly thing to do. The president visits wounded soldiers in hospitals, shooing away any cameras that don't belong to the soldiers and their families. He meets returning soldiers when they fly into DFW when he can. He and Laura have continued their aid work in Africa which started with W's AIDS eradication efforts when he was president. The couple have been very busy building clinics and medical facilities and raising money to address the AIDS epidemic in Africa. No fanfare. No crowds of TV reporters and cameras of the sort that follow Jimmy Carter around. Thousands of grateful Africans are the only ones who take notice. Bush is very popular for his humanitarian work in areas that have been devastated by AIDS. The trouble is these sorts of people aren't Hollywood producers or gay actors or slutty actresses who picked up a social disease - just people who need help. The media doesn't pay much attention to such people, particularly if they don't support the "progressive" agenda the media is desperately promoting.

Meanwhile, back in the states the liberal media and the "progressive" left continue blaming the former

The George Bush tube top - a popular
fashion accessory in central Africa.

president for everything from global warming to outbreaks of toothache in pot-bellied pigs. You'd think they'd get tired of singing the Nanny Nanny Boo Boo Song after a while, but apparently the Progressive Agenda demands it.

I get tired of seeing a good man mocked and ridiculed for doing what he believed was right. On most things, I agree with what Bush tried to do. I think the former president did what he thought was right based on the information he had. That is far different from how either his predecessor or his successor did things. Both Clinton and Obama seem to operate on the "do what is expedient to get what I want" principle of political leadership.

Being President is not brain surgery, but
wouldn't it be nice to have a president
who could do brain surgery if he wanted to....
because he's smart enough?

I respect President Bush and I can't say that about a lot of politicians these days. There's maybe one or two in this current crop of presidential candidates that I can support as whole-heartedly as I did President Bush. It doesn't appear, however, as if the RNC is going to let either of them win, even though they both are running high in the polls. I'd love to see Ben Carson or Ted Cruz shake things up. I don't think the powers that be will ever give us a chance to vote for them though. But how cool would that be if we could get them both - a brain surgeon and a Hispanic businessman running the country. Bring back Condi Rice for SecState and I'd be a very happy man.

Sadly, all we can really do is pray at this point that Jesus comes before this world blows itself up around us. If the last few elections are any indication of where we're going, the next president will probably be the sort that stands upon the rubble of the next massive terrorist attack, wrings her hands and squeals, "Oh my God, they tried to blow me up. How dare they?" Then she'll whip out the old briefcase and start pressing buttons that will turn the Middle East into a sea of glass like Revelation talks about.

I just hope Jesus has the bus gassed up and is coming to get us soon. I have a skin condition that doesn't respond well to radiation.



© 2015 by Tom King

George Bush's Barney salute - The Rest of the Story

A recent picture of the President (Mr. Obama) giving a half-hearted and dismissive salute to the Marine guard at his helicopter, incited much comment in the conservative blogosphere.  Shortly afterward, this photo started going around of a similarly sloppy George W. Bush salute and some nasty message about Bush being arrogant and wouldn't even put his dog down to salute.

Turns out Bush was caught off-guard by a marine salute as he was picking up Barney after he'd been out to relieve himself. Bush actually did set Barney down a few seconds later, returned and gave a proper crisp salute to the soldiers in question.

President Obama did NOT.

Thus endeth the lesson!

And by the way, I think the picture is all kinds of cute....

ISIS and Her American Political Minions

Has anyone twigged to the fact that the acronym for the jihadi army now slaughtering Christians and Muslims alike across Iraq and Syria is "ISIS"? It's the name of the Egyptian Goddess Isis - the mother of Horus, the Egyptian god of war! Her name means literally "throne". Is it an accident that ISIS marching on Baghdad - the prophetic seat of the Caliphate that Islam believes precedes the conquest of the world and the coming of the Muslim version of the Messiah? Check out Isis' headdress. It's a throne. Of course, that's all coincidental. The Obama/Ron Paul policy clearly states that if we just leave the Middle East alone, peace and joy will break out spontaneously.

Speaking of the vast Obama/Paul conspiracy, I was challenged today by a Paulista in the middle of his rant about how evil George Bush was. He challenged me to "...tell me what GOOD has came (sic) out of "The Idiot's" lame adventure ? How bout ONE thing?"  Okay. I can do that. He also asked what Jesus would have done in George W. Bush's place? Obviously he's thinking "turn the other cheek", not the sort of political answer he might have received from the God of the Old Testament. An omniscient God might give my friend a rather different answer than the one he expected. So let me answer my isolationist friend's two major questions.

1. What would Jesus have done in George W. Bush's place?

If Jesus had been in Dubyah's place, we'd all be in heaven now. It would mean He'd come back to get us and he would have taken home the innocent and let the guilty burn down the world around themselves. Unfortunately, President Bush (my hero), had no divine powers. He couldn't take us off planet. His job was to protect and defend people who are stuck here on this planet with no other place to run. He did that, I believe, to the best of his ability. Your characterization of the former president, paints a very different picture of the man than either his words or his deeds in his personal life would match up with. The man is a humanitarian of the first order, working thousands of hours and donation millions of his own personal wealth to fight AIDS in Africa. He greets soldiers coming home at DFW airport whenever he can. He was the first politician to reach the hospital at Ft. Hood after the shootings and, unlike your hero, Barak Obama, he didn't bring an entourage of press photographers. In fact, he was in and out before the press could react. He seems a decent man who does good works out of sight of the press. Not the sort of evil arrogant plotting Machiavelli your conspiracy theory suggests. His charity work goes largely ignored by the media which is too busy vilifying him.

Bush responded to an escalating war by terrorists by doing something rather more energetic than crashing some helicopters in the desert or bombing an aspirin factory. I think he was wise to do so. Osama Bin Laden had issued a very public declaration of war against America. Bush took him at his word. I personally think one should believe one's enemies when they say they want to destroy you. To not do so is the height of stupidity. To believe that surrendering to the demands of someone who not only says they want to kill you, but also has just killed 3000 innocent civilians is to invite them to go even further than they did. See Neville Chamberlain in the history books for an object lesson in how the whole appeasement policy works. Please tell me how pulling our troops out of the Middle East (which was what Osama was demanding) would have brought about "peace in our time"

Finally, as to how God might have instructed George W. Bush had God rung him up on the red phone......well, one need only go to the Old Testament to suss out how an omniscient God instructed Israel to treat its foes (the original Palestinians). That is not a policy any man should institute in today's world, since we have not got His unerring advice on the subject. Personally, we are instructed by Christ to turn the other cheek, a practice I adhere to when the cheek being threatened is my own. However, should someone threaten my family, I will act to preserve their life and safety. The commandment "Thou shalt not kill" in the original Hebrew reads more like "Thou shalt preserve life." It expands the meaning of that command to read it that way.

God has not left our current political leaders direct advice with regard to how a nation-state should act with regard to protecting its people. The Old Testament principle dictated that the judges were to raise up armies when innocent people were threatened by bullies and terrorists and to root them out and destroy them wholesale.  When the Israelites failed to do that, it always came back to haunt them, even thousands of years later when the descendants of those bullies and terrorists are firing missiles at their schools and synagogues. 

2. Can you tell me what GOOD has came out of "The Idiot's" lame adventure?  How bout ONE thing?

To be fair, I copied my friend's question just as he wrote it. One should probably use somewhat better grammar if one is going to call a former president an idiot. I can tell you one big thing right off.

NO TERRORIST ATTACKS ON THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOR THE REMAINDER OF BUSH'S PRESIDENCY.  As soon as Bush was gone and the Obama/Paul retreat policy was implemented, they started hitting us at home again with attacks on Ft. Hood, a recruitment depot in Arkansas and other attacks or attempts. So we reward them for committing acts of terror and it can only be seen by them as a reward.  I'm sure the terrorist leadership and rank and file Islamic militants see themselves as having successfully frightened America - a nation of cowards to their way of thinking - into releasing the Taliban's terrorist board of directors.

SECOND GOOD THING WAS THAT IT GAVE JEWS, BUDDHISTS AND CHRISTIANS A WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY TO GET OUT OF IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN. Tens of thousands have left Iraq and Afghanistan and apparently just in time if the Christian death toll is any indication. And oddly enough, I still don't hear a single word of sympathy from the Paulistas for the victims of the ISIS jihadi army.

A THIRD GOOD THING WAS THAT IT OPENED UP IRAQ'S OIL INDUSTRY SO THAT THEIR ECONOMY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO RECOVER AND STARVING PEOPLE GOT FED AND GOT JOBS. It also helped bring down oil prices not for the United States, but for Europe, China, India and other countries. We get our oil from Central America by and large and Alaska and such places. A relatively small percentage of our oil comes from the Middle East. Opening oil supplies helped keep economies going and staved off recession for years until a grasping Democrat House and Senate succeeded in wrecking the economy during an ongoing war by politicizing the funding of the Iraq/Afghan wars. It's quite a remarkable achievement in the annals of history to have held our soldiers hostage to one party's socialist agenda. Within 18 months of the Democrat takeover of congress, the economy collapsed. Good job guys. And the Ron Paul solution was to surrender the war on terror and come home and to beg the Democrats, still flushed with success to make government smaller and do away with the Federal Reserve. Like that was EVER going to happen.

A FOURTH GOOD THING WAS THAT IT CREATED A POWER VACUUM. I know, "creating a power vacuum" is supposed to be a bad thing. Diplomats like to deal with powerful leaders. It gives them the illusion that they've accomplished something when they get powerful people to sign treaties and stuff. (again, see Neville Chamberlain waving around his peace of paper signed by Mr. Hitler that gave us all "peace in our time"). Now let me think. How exactly did that work out? Anyone remember? A power vacuum left by the removal of an evil dictator is always a good thing. You just have to make sure something worse doesn't come along. Unfortunately, the genius diplomats think they need powerful leaders to manipulate (they being geniuses and all - they think they can do that). Big bunches of free people make diplomats nervous. I mean, who is going to control all those people?  I like power vacuums. Who says we need people holding that much power

A FIFTH GOOD THING WAS THAT IT TOOK BOTH THE TALIBAN AND SADDAM HUSSEIN OUT OF THE COMMANDER'S CHAIRS OF LARGE AND DANGEROUS ARMIES. Saddam had already tried to roll over his neighbors once. He saw himself as a great conqueror. He did have weapons of mass destruction which Syria is hauling out of storage now to use against rebels and any old enemies Assad can bump off in the confusion - Christians for instance. What did you people think was in those trucks rolling across the Syrian border contained? Humanitarian relief? Thinning out those armies gave everyone a break from the threat hanging over their heads.

A SIXTH GOOD THING WAS THAT WE KILLED OR CAPTURED TENS OF THOUSANDS OF THE WORST OF THE JIHADIS.  The evidence (no terror attacks for 7 years) suggests that killing terrorists DOES reduce the number of incidents of terror. It also encourages people to tattle on terrorists when someone actually then acts on the information and removes the terrorists. It has been shown that if you lock up 5 or 6 criminals in a town, it can reduce and even almost eliminate crime there. So, I suspect that removing 50,000 or so terrorists from the playing field might reduce the number of bombs going off, people being stoned or beheaded. What might the death toll have been otherwise. It was getting pretty awful during the Clinton administration. Remember the attacks on our embassies, the USS Cole and the first attack on the World Trade Center? Now that we've renounced the war on terror as foolishness and made it a police matter, how's that working out? This administration has like one "arrest" of a terrorist and they're going to appoint him a lawyer and probably give his defense team copies of the anti-Islamic "movie" that the administration says made him rape and behead an American ambassador. Now, every time a jihadi shoots up a military base or recruiting office they have to relabel it "workplace violence". At least when we were in open war with them, we were winning. In the past five years, this president has imposed rules of engagement that are getting soldiers killed faster than they were during the "evil Bush years". Wonder how come the media doesn't celebrate those milestones of death like they used to?

A SEVENTH GOOD THING IS THAT THE ISSUE HAS POLARIZED THE COUNTRY. One can see clearly the dividing of the sheep and the goats - if not the actual makeup of the two sides. It matters not that both sides see themselves as the sheep. No one wants to be a goat. Jesus said that just before the end, the sheep would be separated from the goats. I think the divisions are actually more subtle than many of us think they are. I also think that it is Satan's purpose is to use this separation process to set us against one another. Better for Satan's purpose for us to think, "He is a liberal. She is a libertarian. They are socialists." I am a neocon (according to those who disagree with me). It's a false label. Man, we are told, looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks upon the heart. The true division among us is not some political boundary. It's a division of purpose. The true division is between those who would stand for the right though the heavens fall and those who stand for themselves. 

I noticed the complete failure in my friend's challenge to express any sympathy towards the tens of thousands of Christian and Muslims who have lost their lives to these evil people. I would challenge everyone who reads this to stop and spend some time in prayer for the people being slaughtered by ISIS forces while our President plays golf and dithers impotently.

Once again, I want to thank all those with differing opinions on this subject, whether they be conspiracy theorists, Paul-bots, socialists, smug, self-important know-it-alls or honest folk, for inspiring another stimulating blog post. This blog could not continue without you. God bless you all and keep you in his care until Christ comes to take us out of this mess we've made. I'm certain He's loading up the bus to come get us even as I write this.


© 2014 by Tom King