Posted on 08/29/2002 1:00:30 PM PDT by feelin_poorly
Shortly after 9-11, TV talk-show host Sean Hannity said, "Thank God, we have an honest man in the White House!"
And when you think about it, a great deal of what you might believe about the so-called War on Terrorism is based on statements from George W. Bush. You have only his word, or that of someone in his administration:
Since America is endangered by the "you're either with me or against me" tactics of the Bush administration, it becomes vital to know whether we can trust the man in charge of our government.
The record
So does George Bush's record inspire confidence in his honesty?
Unfortunately, this is the same man who has referred to trillions of dollars in budget surpluses – even though the federal government hasn't had a budget surplus since 1956. (The appearance of any "surpluses" was created by taking excess receipts from Social Security and applying them to the general budget, even as the politicians swore they were protecting Social Security.)
Mr. Bush even has the chutzpah to refer with a straight face (well not exactly a straight face, he loves to smirk) to corporate executives "cooking the books." He neglects to mention that many of the corporate bookkeeping methods the politicians are so incensed about today were motivated by rules imposed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
And George Bush is the same man who in 2000 said he believed in "limited government." Most people assumed he meant a government limited by the Constitution. In fact, he took an oath in which he swore to uphold the Constitution.
But he's violated virtually every one of the first 10 Amendments – especially the Ninth and 10th Amendments, which are meant to impose precise limits on his power.
So his belief in "limited government" apparently means government limited to what he wants to do.
George Bush is the same man who in one breath tries to ingratiate himself with you by saying, "It's your money, not the politicians' money" – but in the next breath, he says he's entitled to one third of "your money."
George Bush is the same man who said he has learned more about political philosophy from Jesus of Nazareth than from anyone else. But he's proven by his actions that he doesn't really believe such things as "Blessed are the peacemakers." And "the meek" who Jesus said would inherit the earth are in Mr. Bush's eyes really just "collateral damage" in his plans to tell the world how it must live.
Is honesty important?
In these and in so many other ways, George Bush has proven that he's not an honest man – and that we shouldn't trust him with the safety of America.
In fact, Thomas Jefferson understood that we shouldn't put our trust in any politician. He said we should bind them down from mischief "by the chains of the Constitution." And a truly honest man wouldn't even ask you to trust him.
Contrary to what you might have thought, this isn't an article about George Bush. It's an article about you. Are you going to demean yourself by putting your faith in a man who has done so much to demonstrate the folly of such faith?
Are you going to let politicians stampede you into throwing away the Bill of Rights, based on "evidence" you never see, reassured by politicians who have proven that the truth is secondary to their own ambitions?
Don't you have enough respect for your own mind to make your own decisions, refuse to accept conclusions without evidence, and be something better than a cheerleader for a politician or a political party?
Service by proxy. A very liberal idea. Real men don't serve by proxy.
Hmmm. Would that not be self contradictory?.
---max
How about you? In which branch of the military did you serve? Or, do you defend your Nation by proxy?
“Something else regarding the Patriot Act that you may or may not be aware of - it was drafted and written months before 9/11.”
What a goofball. Yes….The evil Federal Government was laying in wait for their opportunity to spring a tyrannical plan on the millions of ignorant, fat, lazy uneducated, indifferent Americans. Show me where anyone involved in writing the Patriot Act [Not anything else] has stated that the Patriot Act was written prior to 9/11.
“I point out yet again that it would appear that most of those in DC right now believe our Constitution is printed on rubber instead of paper just like they did when Clinton was in the White House.”
I did not ask you about what appears to you about others beliefs.
“The two can not be separated like that.”
The two are separate.
“As Ben Franklin once said, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither Liberty nor safety." (November 11, 1755.)”
Can you give me the response Ben Franklin had when asked how he would deal with a Nuclear threat?
No you cannot. I respect and esteem his words…I don’t apply them blindly in order to justify my own incompetence in the face of the threat our Nation faces.
“You can't have it both ways. We either have liberty or we have government 'guaranteed' safety”
Yet another infantile statement. At what point was your cerebral development arrested? We already have Government guaranteed security and personal freedom in this nation. You attempt to ratchet the process up to a ridiculous example. Nobody is calling for total lockdown…nor could it be accomplished. But in order to deal with the threats we now face…the steps taken are reasonable….and have a time limit.
“If the Federal government were really interested”
Again, grow up. The Federal Government is a conglomeration of divisions and departments the like of which have never been assembled ever…you can argue their merit but it is not a singular being with a singular train of thought or intent.
“I've even go so far as to tell you how big a joke all this federalized airport security is”
Nobody asked you about that nor is it remotely part of my original post….again, stop meandering. People want reality…not the opinion of critics.
“we have lost the right to be secure in our persons and in our papers and up until just a few years ago we all understood that road-blocks by the police just to check for papers was blatantly unconstitutional.”
Again…meandering. I said No American has been unlawfully detained.
“What TIPS seeks to do is train…”
Yes…I am glad you agree that TIPS was not a law.
“This makes as much sense as saying let's go out and shoot a certain kind of child because they will more than likely grow up to be hoodlums.”
Only your mind could get that from: Our Nation is under a very cogent threat of Biological as well as nuclear attack. This is not 1776 where we’ll be able to rally the minutemen to protect the Nation from a developing invasion. ...Prevention is the only way to orient ourselves towards and overcome these threats.
“I must have missed that remark. I honestly don't recall anyone advocating having Americans die to have his/her ideas upheld.”
Yes, you missed it.
“I think that if our Founders were alive today they would be more appalled at”
I did not ask you what you thought someone else would think.
“Do you honestly believe this??”
Did you read a disclaimer anywhere in the post? Stop wasting bandwidth asking questions you could easily answer if you applied yourself.
“Thankfully, once again, our Founding Fathers had the wisdom and foresight to plan for just such and eventuality. It's called the chain of command.”
“Chain of command” is a military term to be found nowhere in documents written by the founding fathers. I challenge you to provide us with one. Do not skim over this response…I will hold you to it infinitum.
“We might be shaken but I seriously doubt that we would crumble.”
Is that the fallback gamble? We would be shaken but we wouldn’t crumble in the face of the Nation’s Capitol taking a nuclear detonation?
“I got FReepmail from quite a few of them last night and this morning welcoming me back to posting here.”
Quite a few? 3? I challenge all of them to make their case or support open. ~grin~
“Yes, the 1700 and 1800s are gone and water under the bridge. Something comes to mind…”
Yadayadayada thank you for the acknowledgment.
“What would the Founders have thought about your statement?”
They’re dead…you’ll never know. Nor will anyone else. Stop wasting energy divining what Patrick Henry would’ve retorted to me with. You respond.
“Alas!! Now we finally get down to the truth! You seem to be of the belief that the US. Constitution and its founding ideals are outmoded and outdated…”
Oi…again with the schizophrenic rhetoric. I said: “to honestly believe in the possibility of a return to the original state of national and international affairs that our Nation enjoyed when it was written and established is willfully infantile and ignorant”….furthermore its completely impossible.
“I know that you won't listen to anything I've said but I also know that there are lots of people who lurk more than they post that will take my…”
Fantasyland…let these heretofore unseen posters support you now.
~grin~
0331
2nd Battalion 8th Marines and F.F.A.S.T. Company
Desert Shield
Desert Storm
Study up...
Like I said...Unapproachable.
You are welcome and thank you.
That's mighty impressive! Would you be at liberty to tell us the general area where he served?
Why would these actions be impressive?. Any vet who I have ever talked to (a considerable number) from WWII who was awarded medals of valor for battlefield actions would never consider their medals as "impressive". To the man, each of them would have said that their actions for which they received medals were either a matter of survival or performed with consideration for their comrades.
I had three great-uncles die in a two day period in 1944. One died on Omaha and one in Italy on 6JUN44, one on Utah on 7JUN44. My grandfather recieved a Navy Cross in the Pacific for actions he would never discuss. I recall as a youngster finding his NC in it's box, asking what it was, being told that it was a Navy Cross, saying "Cool!", and getting a response and look from my granddad which I will never forget; "No, it was not cool, death is not "cool" and don't ever forget it".
---max
This is from your profile. Is it accurate? If so, you shouldn't be pushing what a macho soldier you are at the expense of others.
You were willing to serve I'm sure, but by reading this it looks more like you just went to college.
Veiled threat? I will speak thusly in any public forum. I have sworn to defend the Constitution. Have you?
I am pretty sure you do not understand what I am saying. I shall try to type slowly so that you might be able to follow:
The 911 event is insignificant when compared to the willingness on the part of Americans to exchange their rights and freedoms for false security. You do know how to parse grammar, don't you? This does not say that the 911 event was insignificant. It uses a "tall standard" to describe the towering significance of your rights and freedoms.
I'll even try another method. Loss of life at the WTC: 3000+. Loss of life to purchase your rights and freedom: Revolutionary War, War of 1812, Civil War, the Spanish-American War, WWI, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam and countless other conflicts whose numbers I'm not inclined to look up at this time. The 3000+ loss, though great, is not significant in the total scheme of things. Are you ready to discard the rights that were bought and paid for by the blood of your countrymen? Is this loss you have witnessed personally more significant that all the other losses you have not personally witnessed? Are you so sure that the proper response to the WTC incident is abdication of your rights and freedoms?
Do you understand my drift now?
Same thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.