Should we trust George W. Bush?

World Net Daily ^ | 8/29/02 | Harry Browne

[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:

• that Iraq, which George Bush is dying to invade, still has "weapons of mass destruction" that threaten Americans directly;

• that Osama bin Laden masterminded the 9-11 attacks (the infamous videotape demonstrated his joy at the success of the attacks, not his participation);

• that the people being imprisoned as terrorists really are terrorists – even though they've received no public trial (whether you believe terrorists deserve to be protected by the Bill of Rights is irrelevant. You don't even know that they are terrorists until they receive a fair trial under the Bill of Rights);

• that the Bush administration won't misuse the private information it's acquiring through its massive violations of civil liberties.

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.

• He's willing to give your tax money to foreign dictators who claim they "need" it (meaning they've gone too deeply in debt by spending money on palaces and other forms of self-aggrandizement);

• He wants to escalate the spending of your tax money on farm subsidies, health care, welfare, government schools, the War on Drugs, propaganda and other programs – none of which are authorized in the Constitution;

• He believes we should trust him and his minions when they tell us the unnamed people they've locked up are not entitled to the protections of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

• He claims he can attack Iraq without a congressional declaration of war – even though the Constitution clearly gives such authority exclusively to Congress.

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?

[Alan Chapman]

It's Warren G. Harding...what a strange way of trying to make a point: "Tell me who this is..."

I was asked to post a picture of a winner, which I did. I wasn't making a point.

The two great things he did were 1) he kept the US out of the League of Nations, and 2) he left office with a smaller federal budget than when he entered. In fact he cut it nearly in half.

He was the last Republican ever to hold the office of president who left that office with a smaller budget than when he entered.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

Now I know.

You don't know jack, jack.

[Texasforever]

I see the "great thinkers" are back.

[terilyn]

"Storm the Capital???

Ok"

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, don't do it Mo! We'd miss you LOL!

[Howlin]

Well, this is a POLITICAL FORUM; we're talking grownup stuff here, not what's in the latest issue of Seventeen or Entertainment Weekly.

[lonestar]

If it's made up mostly of people like you, I think I'd rather not.

KentuckyWoman meets success!

[terilyn]

"What time do they lock you back in your cell there at the institution, dear?"

It's SUCH a relief to know that it's only the "bots" that partake in these awful personal attacks.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

They were the same person and I believe you are AWARE of that.

Really? Are you sure? I thought you were the only one that tried to have more than one screenname?

[Howlin]

Well, according to one poster, there are only THREE left. :-)

[FreedominJesusChrist]

"We were on this thread first, so if you don't like what you get on here, I suggest you find another thread to pontificate on about the latest fads."

Um...okay Howlin. You are afterall, the ADULT here, right?

You have a very Jesus-filled day now.

[Beenliedto]

But who do you want in the white house, gephart, dashale, hillary, gore ?

How about Ron Paul?

[oldtimer]

GWB has always been a consensus player. IMO He is as Conservative as can be, fair and open minded, but I think he is being misled by Rove and others.

Am disappointed that he didn't put a wooden stake in the rats hearts from day one, as in let's duke it out.

The rats and rinos have reveled in the POTUS trying to go along to get along,

Or is it that we are much further along the line of losing our Country than we know?

[Amelia]

Now you're capitalizing like WORDEE! What's up with that?

[WhiteGuy]

I didn't know that.........

He sure WAS a winner.

Thanks Alan

Jeez, where could we find another like him for 2004?

[FreedominJesusChrist]

I never attempted to have more than one screename at once, silly.

[Howlin]

Excuse me if I don't take very kindly to you mocking Jesus.

[Lumberjack]

Of course not. But you are willing to concede, I hope, that ideas are definitely not judged "good or bad" based on the pronouncements of people who think they are (but they aren't) experts on Constitutional law and their subjective divining of what the Founding Fathers would or would not approve?

The U.S. Constitution has far fewer words than my 2000 Toyota Camry Owner's Manual. Its has less technical detail, less cumbersome wording, and a much more easy to understand writing style.

Now, I can understand my 2000 Toyota Camry Owner's Manual. What do you think the chances are that I can read and understand the Constitution of the United States? Pretty good, wouldn't you say?

And if I can understand the U.S. Constitution, which is not rocket science by any means, doesn't it reason then that I could comment on it in an intelligent manner? And if I, a lowly internet forum poster can accomplish this task, wouldn't you think that others could do so as well?

[VaBthang4]

""All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"

Let me ask you...

Do you think GW is a good Man?

[FreedominJesusChrist]

What? Actually, a lot of kids at my school use that phrase, nothing insulting about it.