Weekly Podium: "It's Not Really About Guns"

A week has come to pass since the horrible tragedy that took place on 04/16/2007 in Blacksburg, VA. Since then, there has been a lot of banter in the media about gun control issues, security on campus, bullying in schools, and other problems. Gun control, either for or against, seems to be the central topic on most people's minds.

Maybe, though, this problem with this incident has much less to do with guns, bullying, and campus security than some may think.

Personally, I believe that the key problem deals with the mental stability of college students today. I've spent plenty of time around college students in our current generation...I was one. Also, I have had plenty of friends who have gone, or are still in, college. The pressures of college are immense. Tens of thousands of dollars are being invested in you, so that you can excel at institutes of higher learning. You are supposed to meet the expectations of people who are considered experts and authorities on their respective subjects. You must write essays that your professors will approve of, and read tens of thousands of pages of bland text while researching the topics. Many people do manage to survive (or thrive, if lucky) in this environment.

Some, however, end up suffering through less-successful endeavors in higher academia.

Given the fact that many kids grow up in broken and/or abusive homes, endure traumatic ostracization in primary and secondary schools, or suffer from other kinds of mental/psychological afflictions...why are we surprised when someone completely cracks under the pressure of the post-secondary educational system in America?

The person responsible for the Virginia Tech massacre, Cho Seung-Hui, had long-standing psychological issues. Apparently, it was obvious to teachers, students, and experts who evaluated Cho and believed him to be a threat to himself and/or others. How come there wasn't a non-derogatory suspension (for lack of a better term) from the school so Cho could receive proper treatment and care?

I, along with more than a few people I know, believe that the psychological condition of college students should be something that is evaluated before being allowed to enter a school of higher education.

We interview, test, and evaluate potential college students based upon SAT/ACT scores, application essays, and sometimes in face-to-face interviews (depending on the school). Why not have students go through a psychiatric evaluation, as well? It would at least cut down on the suicide rate in our universities, as well as the dropout rate due to school-related stress and anxiety.

It wouldn't have to be a long evaluation, just long enough to get a sense of the person applying for enrollment. Also, if a student needs to be evaluated and/or counseled during their time at the university for mental instability of any kind, there should be steps put in place to allow students to "take a break" from school and get the assistance they need, and once they are deemed ready to come back to school, they should be allowed back in without any problems...but should be made to attend periodic counseling or evaluations, just to make sure they are still doing well.

This would cost money, both with the inclusion of psychiatric evaluators on university payrolls, and the exclusion of those students who fail the evaluation (and their tuition dollars). However, I'm sure that state and federal government wouldn't mind avoiding more incidents like the one at Virginia Tech, nor would they mind decreasing the college suicide rate.

Here's some facts about suicide amongst high school and college students:

• Nearly 1,100 suicides are projected to occur this year on college campuses.
• In the past 50 years, the suicide rate for 15-24 year olds has increased 200%.
• Suicide is the second-leading cause of death of college students, only behind traffic accidents.
• Since 1950, the suicide rate for college-aged women has doubled, for college-aged men the rate has tripled.

Now, the suicide rate in colleges compared to the "real world" is lower, but we shouldn't send kids into a high-pressure environment like college without making sure that they are mentally and emotionally capable of handling it. To further exacerbate a person's psychological instability with the pressure of college does not necessarily bode well for their chances in the real world, provided they make it through college.

My friend Hunter Golden recently ranted about the relative psychological instability of college students through his own experiences working at Springfield College in Springfield, Massachussetts. While his rant is admittedly rambling and sometimes disjointed, the stories and points made within are interesting and worth a read. Some of the stories about these disturbed students, and the lack of reaction to their issues, is a bit shocking.

While my attempts to find a solution to this ever-present problem of mental and emotional instability amongst college students are a bit far-fetched to be implemented immediately, I would hope that small steps could be taken to start such a process. Maybe then, we can get people like Cho Sueng-Hui the proper help and care he needed before he decided to carry out his own personal, crazed idea of vengeance.

The thing is, will the colleges and universities of America be willing to part with the tuition funds from those turned away?

Hokie Hope Day...

That is all that needs to be said for today.

Peace and Love to all of you,

Phil Chroniger

Anger Replacing my Sadness

Those who know me know that I'm a fairly open-minded person. I may not agree with you, but I tend to believe that people have a right to their opinion, and have probably come to their conclusions due to some form of personal research or life experience.

However, as much as I try to be open-minded and even-keeled about how I view the world, and how I view other people's opinions, sometimes I completely fail to see the logic, sense, or in this case sanity, of certain people and what they represent.

I hate this man.

This man represents a lot of what's wrong in the world today. This man wants to make you believe that you're going to die for being human. And now, this man is going to be coming to Virginia.

This man is Fred Phelps, leader of the Westboro Baptist Church (aka "The WBC). The single biggest promoter of hate, homophobia, and anti-Americanism there is. This man, and his followers, are famous for doing things that make any average person sick to their stomach.

This is the group that constantly pickets and protests outside of the funerals of fallen soldiers, holding up signs like "Thank God for Dead Soldiers", "Thank God for 9-11", and "God Hates Fags".

They rail against Catholicism, Islam, America, Homosexuals, Jews...pretty much everyone outside of their church. In fact, since members of this "church" (I use the term loosely) cannot marry outside of the church, 80% of the members are related to each other. It's a community of hate and ignorance.

I apologize for the language in that last sign quote, but those are the words of that man and his followers. It's a word he seems to have quite an affinity for. He states that American soliders dying in Iraq is a good thing because America "loves fags" and that this is "God's will". They protested and picketed at the site of the Sago Mine Disaster last year, holding up signs that said "Thank God for Dead Miners".

Even Jerry Falwell has referred to Phelps as a "first-class nut". When Jerry Falwell considers you too extreme of a Christian organization, you know you're seriously screwed in your interpretation of Christian teachings. The KKK even thinks these WBC wackos are too extreme, and have launched propaganda campaigns against the WBC in Virginia...and this was back in December of 2006.

Now, the WBC plans to protest at the funerals of all those slain at the Virginia Tech Massacre. Many people have suggested that larger Christian churches should appear at these funerals. To counter the hate and vile spewed forth by the WBC with peace, prayer, and hymns. Others are calling on the "motorcycle blockades" that have been employed at funerals and other gatherings that have drawn the ire of the WBC.

The actions and viewpoints. taken by these people is sick, disgusting, and revolting on any and all levels of life. They may have the right to these opinions due to the 1st Amendment, but I will never agree, condone, or even vaguely understand their virulent disapproval of anything they don't declare to be "right".

To those who go out to confront these harbingers of hate, I commend you for your efforts. You're helping make this world a better, more peaceful place.

I don't care if you're a liberal, conservative, statist, libertarian, anarchist, communist, facist, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, man, woman, straight, gay, transgendered, Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, Native-American, Arabic, multi-racial, or anything else I may have forgotten to mention. If you have the ability for rational thought, and have any compassion for human beings, there is simply no way anyone can stomach the insanity that flows forth from the pulpit of Fred Phelps.

I think that's something that almost all of us can agree on.

Debate and Point-Making vs. Outright Slander

Those of us who read and write blogs see it all the time. Vicious personal attacks both within the blogs themselves, or in the comments that others leave. Name-calling, fact-spewing (or fact-spinning, however you like it), and chock-full-of-opinion.

Sometimes, it's fun. Other times, it's downright tiresome to read.

Liberals and conservatives both are blogging at a fairly frantic pace. Either voicing opinions or countering the opinions of others. Everyone has a right to their opinion. However, I've recently put myself into a more "well-known" position in the Virginia blogosphere by commenting and debating on blogs that I previously read, but didn't comment on.

One of the surprising aspects was the fact that I, a very opinionated person, have received several comments about my general candor being "refreshing" and/or "appreciated" on different blog comment sections. People seemed to appreciate the fact that I simply discuss my position vis-a-vis other people's positions.

Every now and then, I will go on a bit of a rant, and I'll probably deride liberals pretty hard (and conservatives, if I feel they've earned it). Usually, though, it's over policies or ideologies that I don't agree with. I'll use some of the typical derogatory slang to poke fun or slam those I disagree with.

But to continually name-call people, to disallow any respectable dissenting opinions, to use overly-vulgar language and never add any substance to what you're saying...that's not doing much for the blogging society and it's great political debate that has raged for several years, now.
It's OK every now and then, but it's not a good gimmick to saddle yourself with, as it leaves you open to attacks of the same nature. Although both conservative and liberal bloggers are both guilty of this gimmick, I must say that I do find it more on the liberal side. It's their right to say such things, but they shouldn't be surprised if nobody takes them seriously. In fact, I take "Virginia Virtucon" a lot less seriously after a strange and slightly-unfounded rant that "Riley" made over there today...less seriously to the point of removing Virtucon from my Blogroll.

And just in case liberals want to challenge me, and state that I'm not being an "equal-opportunity 'basher'", I have already talked about where Bush's faults lie in a previous article.

Anyway, I do enjoy the level of debate that goes on between the bloggers. I look forward to further discussions on various topics, so long as civility and good-spirit remains in the atmosphere of these debates.

Not a Blog, I'm Literally at a Loss for Words...

...as of right now, 31 Virginia Tech students will never see Graduation Day. From what I've read, there will be more added to that number.

If you don't know what I'm referring to, here's a news story on it.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266374,00.html

My heart and my prayers go out to the friends and families of the victims, and to the survivors and their friends and families, as well.

Senseless, cold-blooded murder. It makes me sick. Just like those who, within 3 hours of the story breaking, already attempted to use this story to push a political agenda. No respect for those who are mourning. Allow people to grieve, to pray, and to reflect, first.

Weekly Podium: "100 Days Gone...What Happened?"

Remember the time-period between the November elections and the official Democratic-takeover of Congress in January? If you do remember correctly, there was a lot of bluster from the Democrats. They were going to “make government work” and push through dozens of domestic policy initiatives. It was this bluster that led to much fanfare from columnists and bloggers around the country, including myself.

That being said, what has the Democrat-controlled Congress accomplished during their first 100 days?

For starters, the minimum-wage bill has failed to reach the President’s desk in a timely manner because Democratic leaders in both the House and the Senate used the bill as a tool to fight an internal power dispute within the party, which led to a lack of compromise on some of the language within the bill. This was exacerbated because Republicans, understandably, wanted to provide tax breaks for small businesses, and the Democrats completely balked on that idea, despite their “for the working class“ posturing. This sorely disappointed me, as I was very much in support of the federal minimum-wage increase.

The interest-rate reduction on student loans, the implementation of suggestions by the 9/11 Commission, the funding increase for stem-cell research…all of these policy initiatives were hyped to no end. All of the aforementioned initiatives were part of the “First 100 Hours” the Democrats were hyping as they rode a wave of momentum coming off the November elections. None of the measures introduced in the “First 100 Hours” have made it past the compromise process between the House and the Senate (both controlled by the Democrats). This means that none of these bills have had the opportunity for President Bush to review and/or sign into law.

Part of the problem lies within the Democratic party switching gears and focusing on Iraq, after stating they would focus more on domestic issues. This means that one of the issues that got the Dems into power has been abandoned for the time being. Democrats have focused on going after President Bush and the GOP, instead of pushing policies. This completely contradicts their entire stance from their 2006 campaign.

Nancy Pelosi has now decided that instead of working with President Bush (as she constantly stated she would do from the time she was announced as Speaker of the House), now she’s attempting to subvert the President’s authority by attempting to act as a diplomatic authority in the Middle East. Pelosi attempted a high-profile visit to Syria, which ended up in her sending mixed messages, and even some outright lies about “possible peace talks” between Syria and Israel. Many believe that the intentions of her trip was to simply act defiant in the face of the White House.

So much for “working with the President”, as it didn’t even take her 4 months to attempt to undermine executive policy.

Nonetheless, the lack of real action put forward by the Democrats in regards to their initial intentions has shown up in independent polling. I was reading a public opinion poll by the Pew Research Center, and their results showed that the public actually has a disapproving view of Democratic policies. Democratic policies only held a 37% approval rate, while 42% disapprove and 21% don’t know what to think.

In the same poll, Pelosi herself carries a 48% approval rating, with only 22% disapproving of her job, but a curiously large section of those polled (30%) don’t know whether or not to approve or disapprove of Pelosi’s job. Harry Reid’s numbers are further intriguing (32% approve, 22% disapprove, and a whopping 46% “don’t know”). These poll results can be found at http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=315

I personally chalk up the large percentages of “don’t know” due to simple inability of the Democratic party to truly “work with the Republicans”, as they had promised. Until the Democrat’s attention switched from improving domestic policies to “Iraq, Iraq, Iraq”, it seemed like we had a glimmer of bi-partisan hope. Republicans seemed fairly willing to work with the Democrats on domestic issues.

Once Pelosi and company switched up gears, they effectively tossed their bi-partisanship efforts right out the window. Now that things in Congress have slowed to a snail-like pace, people don’t know what to think. Both parties are waging publicity wars against each other (what’s new there), and op-ed columnists and bloggers alike are taking to their keyboards in a war of words.
The question that remains in my mind is…was the bluster and relative bust of the “100 Days“, as well as the abandoning of their initial objectives, signs of things to come from the Democrats?

I guess we shall wait and see…

Weekly Podium: "Digging For Some Answers"

It’s been a long time since I’ve written one of these columns. I frequently comment on articles in The New Dominion. I’ve been doing a lot of reading, watching, and thinking, and lately, I feel a few topics have come about that warrant discussion.

The first topic that has weighed on my mind is a news story out of Virginia Beach that has garnered a national stage. For those who haven’t heard the story, I’ll sum it up for you. A man, Alfredo Ramos, was driving drunk and subsequently caused an accident which killed two teenage girls. This is a terrible tragedy that kills thousands each year and affects millions of Americans at the same time.

The underlying issue with this particular incident is that Mr. Ramos is an illegal alien who was been convicted of 4 misdemeanors during his time in the U.S. , one of which was a DUI. He has never served time in jail. His illegal alien status has never been reported to the proper immigration authorities. In fact, after each of these convictions, Mr. Ramos has been allowed to walk freely from the courthouse.

Virginia Beach has a written, on-the-record policy that states that police officers are NOT to ask about the immigration status of suspects and convicted criminals. In fact, the Police Chief in Virginia Beach , Alfred Jaycocks, Jr., further supported this position when he stated “Not only do we not have the capacity to do the federal government’s work in the area of immigration, but we have no business doing so.” Excuse me, Chief Jaycocks, but if I’m not mistaken, illegal immigration is against the law. Is it not the duty of the police to uphold the laws of the land, from the municipal level to the federal level as necessary?

Perhaps even more amazing is the fact that the mayor of Virginia Beach, Meyera Obendorf, does not know that this “do not ask” immigration policy exists within her city’s own police department. When Jesse Walters, producer of “The O’Reilly Factor” on Fox News, approached Mayor Obendorf and asked her if the police had such a policy, she flatly denied its existence. In other quotes that I have read, she has stated that she “does not know” of any policy. So, either the mayor is lying to the press and the public, or she is ignorant of her own city’s police policies.

The real underlying question remains: should we be so tolerant of criminal acts by illegal aliens?

I believe we shouldn’t be so tolerant. Lest we forget, simply being an illegal alien is a crime in itself. So that already puts them on thin ice, and by committing another criminal act (or multiple ones, in Mr. Ramos’ case), they have pretty much waived their right to claim that they are a productive member of society, and therefore should have their illegal status overlooked.

My mother and grandparents came to this country in the early 1970’s from Brazil. They did it the lawful, proper way. They did this because they believed that you should respect the laws of the land, and they came to this country in a lawful manner. They filled out the right paperwork, talked to the right people, and never had a problem with their status as legal immigrants.

I sympathize with those who are fleeing their country to find a better life in America. I’m a first-generation American on my mother’s side. I know my family’s story, and I know why people immigrate to America in the first place. We live in the greatest country in the world, and that’s not propaganda. That, my friends, is a fact.

It should be noted that nothing stops these illegal immigrants from entering this country lawfully except for two things; impatience and a lack of respect for the law in this country. If these criminal offenders can’t respect the laws they already broke to come into this country, then they should not be allowed the privilege to live here.

Moving on…

During my many conversations with people of all races, religions, genders, creeds, and sexual orientation, the topic of the 2008 Presidential Election comes up, as it is already shaping up to be a very important race and one of the most closely watched in history. While I find that the majority of people do not support Hillary Clinton, there are some that do. While they are entitled to support whomever they choose, I often wonder “why her? What is her appeal to these people?”

When I ask Hillary supporters why they support her, 99 percent of the time the response is something along the lines of “it’s about time we got a woman in there! Men have been screwing up things in America for too long!”

Not shocking, we’ve heard that statement before. However, other than her one term in the Senate, what qualifications does she hold to be President? That question gets much less of a rousing answer from most of those who support her.

Then, I follow that up with “what does Hillary stand for that you like?” Other than a few jabs at Bush and the Iraq War, or maybe some pro-feminine sentiments, I don’t get much else in response, either. By this point, whoever I’m speaking to at this point is visibly angry at my line of questioning.

When I bring up her failed health-care proposal from the early to mid-90s, or her stated intent to raise taxes across the board, I then reach a common response amongst most of the Hillary supporters, especially female ones. That response will fall along the lines of “you’re just sexist, you don’t like the idea of a woman as President because you are a sexist male!”

This could not be further from the truth. I don’t care of our President is male, female, black, white, Hispanic…as long as it is the “best candidate” for the job. Gender/race/religious identity should not be a factor. The fact that I currently favor Rudy Giuliani over the rest of the candidates who have officially joined the race has nothing to do with his being a white male. It has to do with how closely do his political views and my political views match. THAT is what we should be looking at.

Speaking about the former First Lady, after reading a direct quote from a Hillary Clinton fundraising speech from 2004, in which she stated to those who were there in support of her…

“Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”

…wait a minute, is Stalin posthumously writing Hillary’s speeches? Since when did we become the Peoples Republic of America?

These tax cuts have helped me, and I fall under the scope of “lower middle class”, so it’s not just a “rich people” tax break. So you mean to tell me that since I (along with millions of Americans) benefited from Bush’s tax cuts, Hillary and the Democrats are going to “take things away from me on behalf of the common good?”

I’ll pause for a moment to allow you to let that “common good” statement soak in.

Who is Hillary Clinton, or anyone in our government, to say that I have to give up things for “the common good” to get American “back on track”. I’m sorry, but realistically speaking, America really isn’t that “off-track.” Even more significant is the fact that widening the influence, size, and power of the federal government is NOT the answer. It hasn’t been the answer since the Great Depression. Last I checked, our economy was growing at an encouraging rate with no signs of financial collapse.

So Hillary wants you, the taxpayer, to pay more in taxes so that she can once again attempt to introduce a heavily-bureaucratic universal health care system that will simply widen and expand the powers of Government over what doctors you can see, what medicines you can get, and how soon you will get those much-needed medicines. Big Government…not working for you.

As Ronald Reagan once said, “Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.”

Weekly Podium: "Battling The Contentiousness"

Looking at the current political and social state of America, one can see that most of the general public is in a cynical, pessimistic mood toward our nation and its leaders. The Republicans have lost a lot of popularity amongst voters, and the Democrats are in power due to being the only other option available. Neither party is worthy of glowing praise for being upbeat, positive and eager to end the contentiousness.

Much of the blame can be based upon the war in Iraq, and how it has been handled by the powers that be. These powers that be are not just the ones in the White House, but the ones on Capitol Hill and on the evening news.

Let it be known that I, personally, like George W. Bush, and I think he is intelligent, and a very good and well-meaning human being. However, I have never seen a president and his staff be so incompetent at handling the media spin. Nor have I seen anyone who lacked the ability to sell an agenda the way Bush has been unable to sell the war in Iraq.

The mishandling of the sale of the Iraq policy to both Congress and the American public has caused Bush to have problems selling other policies. The problems we’re facing abroad make Bush seem incompetent as a leader, and call his other policies into question.

The public sees that we’re struggling (not losing, mind you) in Iraq, and they instantly assume that we must be struggling at home. This is why the general public thinks that, despite the evidence to the contrary, our economy is somehow sinking quickly, and we’ll soon enter the next Great Depression.

The truth is, our economy is very strong, especially when you consider that we are fighting a war without having converted to a wartime economy. Another truth that many do not realize is that most of the troops overseas do not feel that we are losing the war in Iraq. They know the harsh realities of war (which is something most Americans seem to be forgetting), and all they ask for is support while they fight for victory.

However, you cannot completely blame George W. Bush for his lack of success in implementing his policies in Iraq. The liberal mainstream media, in general, has been completely irresponsible in the statements they have made throughout the coverage of the war. This irresponsibility also applies to their portrayal of Bush, as well as conservatives in general. They have managed to spin the news to fit their own agenda, and the public has bought into it.

Generally speaking, the mainstream media has been marginally successful in attempting turn this war into another Vietnam. A lot of the reasoning behind this is because these comparisons to a memorable American military failure create hysteria, which in turn, create ratings. Some say that the media simply voices what the American public is thinking. However, it is one thing to voice people’s concerns - it’s another thing to exploit those concerns and find any reason to validate them in order to raise your network’s ratings or increase your publication’s readership.

I often chat about politics with a gentleman named Hunter Golden, who is a former aide to 2008 presidential hopeful Mitt Romney. He and I have spent the past 10 days debating the contentiousness in modern-day American politics, and if this can be stopped with a new face in the White House come 2008.

We both came to the agreement that there is a certain mold that our next leader must fit in, and we must look to the past to find this mold. That mold is the one defined by Ronald Reagan. Someone who is a forward-thinking, visionary politician that does not allow themselves to be distracted from the main objective. A person who focuses on the important matters, and can handle the media pressure, as well as sell his or her policies.

In comparing Bush’s inability to sell a policy to Reagan’s “salesmanship”, Golden stated, “The Social Security reform bill should have been cookies. Give that bill to Reagan, and it’d have been through and done in three weeks. Not because Reagan brings any sort of genius to the bill that it doesn’t already have, but because the guy knew how to sell the American public - the fundamental reason Iraq has been a failure is that Bush never once was effective at selling the war at home. A few questions we might want to ask ourselves: Why are there no ‘heroes’ in this war? Why aren’t we seeing parades for those heroes? Simple propaganda like that just hasn’t been done to keep people’s support up. FDR spent millions upon billions on propaganda for World War II, and even courted private industry to support it as well. He mobilized all sectors of the American economy to fight that war.”

He and I both share the belief that what is missing from our political landscape is a high-profile figure who is focused on what is right for America as we move forward into the future, and makes decisions based upon that focus.

“What we’re sorely lacking right now are Reagan-style politicians. Both parties have no ‘vision’. They’re mired in petty squabbles and the peripheral dominates everything.” Golden opined, “Some would disagree, but I don’t see abortion as being one of those fundamentally important issues. It’s always going to be up for debate. Issues like that though, and our divisiveness around them, hurt us from looking at the big picture. I think that’s what is going to trigger the big turnaround in America today.”

Golden’s viewpoint is one that is shared by many people I know, both liberal and conservative.
In two years, what I believe we will need in the White House is a “great communicator”, which is one of Reagan’s enduring nicknames. Someone who can clearly convey the message they are trying to send, as well as the message of their respective party. This is a key quality we must keep in mind when choosing our next president, and I hope those who are reading remember this come November 2008.

Golden agreed with that sentiment, and referred to his party’s need for that great communicator when he stated, “We need someone who can recommunicate Republican values again. Denny Hastert was an awful choice for speaker of the house. Bill Frist has the charisma of a thumb tack. The minority leadership is even worse. Neither Dole or Bush, while very likeable, were good communicators. We really need one.”

Along with the ability to communicate a point of view, I think that we are also lacking politicians with a dynamic, take-the-bull-by-the-horns mentality. Someone who takes a definitive stance on an issue, makes that stance well-known, and proceeds to solve the issue in a way that is best for America - not just what is best for their poll numbers. In other words, someone who has a mentality that is opposite of someone like John Kerry, circa 2004. It was Kerry’s inability to take a definitive stance on anything that ensured his defeat.

If you look at some of the great leaders of the past, you will notice that they had similar qualities to those I mentioned previously. They sold their agendas well, focused on the overall picture, and were usually undeterred by smaller, petty issues. They also had a public persona of a leader. They were looked up to as role models and icons for all Americans.

Some took on the public persona of a father figure, like Ronald Reagan and FDR. They portrayed the image of someone who took care of America and that would provide guidance to our nation, like a good father would do for his son. However, these compassionate image were also tempered by an ability to push their agenda into fruition, because they were doing it for the good of America - not merely for the praise of the pundits, or the five-point increase in their approval rating.

Where’s our modern-day Fiorello LaGuardia, smashing a collection of seized illegal slot machines with a sledgehammer off of a barge and into the Hudson River? Where’s our version of FDR, speaking to the public via fireside chats and portraying an image of strength while sitting in a wheelchair? Where’s our Ronald Reagan, denouncing our enemies at the gates that lead into their territory?

Where is that leader, who takes America by the hand, and single-handedly leads America in the right direction - without consulting his CNN poll numbers, first?