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?

[Torie]

Ah yes, the destroy it to save it philosophy. That approach loses appeal as one ages.

[Mo1]

According to our way of thinking, Sadam is a madman

Oh that's right .. he doesn't want to cause any trouble

He didn't really mean to kill thousand and thousands of his OWN people ..

He didn't think those chemicals would kill people when he tested them out

Noooooooooooooooooo .. Saddam is a realllly nice guy who meant no harm .. it was just an accident and he didn't really mean it when he declare war on Americans .. he was just misunderstood

GET REAL

[terilyn]

Nobody around me is "chanting agreement with a leader". We're chanting agreement against a man who's obvious objective is to try to build himself up at the expense of the President.

I've seen the "bots" support a lot of what GWB has done, but I've also seen then denounce his signing of CFR, disagree vehemently with his stance on 245i, and grudging accept that the education bill as signed, was the best he could do without the Senate. And don't forget, that was one of the items he ran on. BTW - the dems are mad at the election bill. Seems that they forgot to read the fine print that the money is actually tied to PERFORMANCE. Schools that don't perform, don't get the increased spending. And their students can leave and take their money with them to another public or private school.

I don't shudder at the thought of future security measures. I shudder at the thought of the intelligence that has come to light in the past 11 months. Things that I probably don't want to know. I shudder to think of what kind of a man wouldn't do his job as leader of the greatest nation on earth and defend that said nation. After all, that is the one duty that the federal government is charged with in the constitution, no?

If GWB was truly interested in power grabbing via infringing on our freedoms he would have directed the terror threat "meter" to be elevated on a regular basis. Nothing works like fear to make the sheeple fall in line.

Has he done this? No, he hasn't. He has informed the public of threats when they have information. Let us know when that threat is deemed credible, and let us make up our own minds about the risks we choose to take or not take. That's why we trust this President. He gives us exactly what most conservative people want, the right to digest information and make up our own minds about what we will do with it.

And, you must have been listening to a different speech than I did in front of the joint session of congress. I never once heard GWB claim that we should be ready to give up our liberties and lives. On the contrary, he said that we should be fighting as hard as we can to preserve those very liberties and our very lives.

[Mo1]

Then, it can be rebuilt maybe. Just a thought.

And what happens if it's not .. and but the way .. just how long will it take??

[Torie]

Why do I get this feeling you didn't answer the question. Of course, we know who else could have beaten Gore - McCain! Would that have been good the nation. No! That was not always my opinion.

[Amelia]

any event, the bloom is off the equity investment rose, which was viewed at one time as the universal solvent for balancing the actuarial books with higher returns.

Yeah, if my Social Security account looked like my 401K.....

Actually it might look worse.... ;-)

[KentuckyWoman]

If you don't know what you're talking about it's best to take that into account BEFORE you post. There are several books on history that will help you with your lack of knowledge of the Founders and the Constitution.

I have simply chosen to ignore the fact that you are more obtuse than I originally thought. I am quite well versed in this period of history and only inquired what you thought of it. I simply don't have the time to write a proverbial book for you right now. The point Iwas making, had you bothered to ask, was that the Constitution gives time specific limitions on any 'war' powers assigned to the POTUS. GWB is attempting to take advantage of loop-holes 'discovered' by white house council that go back to the old dems theory about a 'living' document.

[Mulder]

I don't see how anyone who paid attention could have thought Bush was nearly the most conservative candidate running.

I never claimed he was. He did posture himself as a conservative, however.

For starters, his ideas of increasing federal involvement in education were a bit tip-off.

We were told that would be the "price" for getting vouchers through Congress. Well, now we have a 27% increase in the Federal Education budget, and no vouchers.

Have you seen the polls that say the majority of Americans think the government should be involved in a prescription drug program?

The government is already involved in the prescription drug industry. They tax the drug companies at a confiscatory rate. They place onerous and restrictive burdens on them when they attempt to bring a new drug into the marketplace. They create so much red tape, that the cost of prescription drugs is 2-3X what it would be in a truly Free market.

The government created the problem, and they hold themselves up as the solution.

Reagan would have told us that, and stated flat out that the "government is the problem not the solution".

Bush will likely team up with his buddy, Ted Kennedy, once again, and have us taxpayers pay for a new expanisonist and unconstitutional federal program.

[KentuckyWoman]

I repeat, I never heard of you until tonight so it's possible I impressd you more than you impressed me.

Have you considered a memory upgrade. Maybe to 32K. Granted, here lately, I lurk more than I post but I've been around for quite some time and was quite active up until about 3 or 4 months ago. New job duties and additional home schooling subject are taking up more of my time of late.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

"WOW .. you've seen the light??"

No, I haven't seen the "light." I have always supported President Bush strongly on foreign policy issues--he is very strong in that area and has some very solid policy advisors on the issue. I also like Don Rumsfield and believe that he is a very valuable asset to the Bush Administration. I would like to see President Bush paying more attention to the Pentegon rather than to the State Department, in regards to foreign policy and the War on Terror. He seems to be doing that.

Some people here seem to believe that I am this rabid Bush-hater and I would just like to show that I am not. Anyone who knows me in my personal life would not believe me to be a Bush-hater either. President Bush is strong in the area of foreign policy, but in my opinion, could use some work on his domestic policy.

That being said, we need to invade Iraq, kill Sadaam Hussein, and set up a new form of government.

[Mulder]

Why do I get this feeling you didn't answer the question. Of course, we know who else could have beaten Gore - McCain!

It's very possible McCain could have beaten Gore, as it's very possible the other GOP candidates could have also defeated Gore.

I've seen the underdog win too many times to sit here and say there is only candidate who can win an election.

[justshe]

I have my fingers crossed for October.

[Torie]

I don't think you are an expert on the presciption drug industry. Some things are broke, such as the fact that the US perscription drug consumers basically pay for drug research that benefits the world, while Western Europe and Canada are free riders, but that was not what your post addressed. It had that unfortunate populist tone that well, does not comport with the facts, that gets my hair standing on end more than most statements of an ideological nature do. Maybe because I am so certain, to a moral certainty, that it so absolutely wrong! Cheers.

[KentuckyWoman]

As I stated earlier, her/him posting a revised account of history does not make me a liar. It only makes the poster look uninformed.

Oops. Got in a hurry and left out a word. I'm not the one who posted the revisionist history. What I was referring to was written during the 1700s. What was posted back to me was written in either the late 1800s or early 1900s. I forget now and don't want to take the time to go back and re-run the google search.

[Torie]

I actually can't think of a one myself who ran. Orin Hatch anyone? Well, whatever.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

"All you ever do is post facts ...when are we gonna hear some wild inflammatory rhetoric?"

In many ways, that is why I like deport. He sticks to the facts and is perhaps the epitome of the empirical poster here. I have never seem him personally attack anyone here and has shown more self-restraint than I have ever seen anyone on this forum use.

He is a pro at posting quantitative informtion.

[jwalsh07]

Israel is our ally and friend. Should we abandon them to the infidel killers?

I'll go back further than you probably want to and say that the United Nations had NO business creating a country out of whole cloth to make up for what a certain race of people suffered at the hands of other nations. Having gotten THAT out of the way, what makes you believe that we should prop up every country that professes (whether true or not should best be left for another time) to be our friend. I can only think of one country that has ever come to our exclusive aid and that would be France during the Revolutionary war. Others have sided with us during wars and conflicts because it also served their own best interest at the time but now some who HAVE fired on the US now proclaim to be our friends, in large part, because they are receiving the money stolen from you and I at the threat of incarceration. Does this make them our friends? I don't think so. It's like this whole 'war with Iraq' business. Our leaders are talking, what is basically, pre-emptive strikes. You know, do unto others before they get the chance to do unto you. This is NOT grounded in ANY Constitutional ideology and, for that matter, flies directly in the face of everything that a true Constitutional Republic is supposed to stand for. Read the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire? It could prove quite enlightening to anyone wanting to know what comes next.

A simple yes would have been fine..

[Mo1]

I would like to see President Bush paying more attention to the Pentegon rather than to the State Department, in regards to foreign policy and the War on Terror. He seems to be doing that.

Bush likes to hear all sides of the argument before making a decision

I kind of like that .. if he was surrounded by a bunch of yes men .. then I would be worried ..

[Mulder]

Another thing, can you remember when a president has had a worse first year dealing with things that were not of his making?

No doubt about it, but others had it pretty rough also, especially during our Founding.

And who do you think conservatives should have voted for?

I supported Quayle primarily because of his 30% across the board tax cut. If I had it to do over, I probably would have supported Alan Keyes.

[justshe]

~~~Unless she thought of it first, KW thinks everything is illegal.~~~

Constituitional experts seem to have that disease.

THEY know what is best for everyone else. And they try to convince us that we are ALWAYS on the brink of destruction. AND.....all is black......woe is us....the country is doomed. WE are idiots. WE are sheeple. Brownshirts abound on EVERY corner. STATISTS we are, one and all. Jack-booted thugs. Only THEY have read the Constitution. Only THEY can interpret the BOR for us. I get SO sick of the rhetoric...the jingo-isms...the total inanity of their self-righteous, arrogant bilge. They are worse than a bunch of freshman college idiots solving the problems of the WORLD from their exalted perches in the Quad.

Sorry for the rant.