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?

[Alabama_Wild_Man]

Well - for someone that seemed to never run out of things to say...

...sure got very, very quite.....

I'll take that as capitualtion and go on to better (and brighter) subjects....

....later on.....

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Stopped tapping on the glass, did you? ; )

[FreedominJesusChrist]

And I suppose you think you're being humorous.

That comment made to Texasforever was meant as a harmless joke. Obviously, some people here do not have a sense of humor.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

"Only when offered"

I'm sure.

[habs4ever]

I trust an iconoclast will do what he wants anyway.If you want to suck your thumb, go ahead, but stop boring anyone that thinks antipathy to your POV is "mindless".When you have demonstrated how you are an intellectual heavyweight who merits my consideration, then I'll be prepared to bend my knee and attempt to kiss your ring.

I have assessed Bush and will stick with it until proved otherwise.Tell me how that is "mindless"?

[Mo1]

I tried ... but it seems that Cybil is intend on causing trouble

[FreedominJesusChrist]

"Nope, when Rebeckie shows up, it loooks like a transcript of the now dead Opie & Anthony Show. She hasn't a clue about anything; but, considers herself to be the " expert "."

I don't consider myself to be an expert, but I do like to exchange ideas and opinions with other people.

But them, I also forgot that you are the expert on everything, including being both the Emily Post and grammatical queen of FR. LOL.

[Jefferson Adams]

BTW, good to "see" you again.

Thanks.

I don't come over here much anymore, because every time I do it only reminds me how far this country has fallen. FR used to be made up of true conservatives who could think for themselves, and who were more interested in truth and freedom than party affiliation. Plus, they knew their history. Most of those people have either left voluntarily, as they saw what was happening here, or were banned for speaking out against the corruption and un-Constitutional behavior of the current administration.

There are still a few here who have a clue - yourself included. But this thread is an extremely good example of exactly how far down the hill we are in this country. The scary thing is to compare the verbage and attitudes on this thread of most freepers to that of the population at large in Germany in the early '30s when Hitler was taking over. They're virtually identical.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

"Well put. I’m rather astounded by the insults they hurl at a good-natured poster that has shown no vindictiveness or malice. The insecurities of this canine pack seems to be running high."

Ditto on that one. Underneath it all, I believe that these people were still laughing and do have a good sense of humor underneath it all. :)

[FreedominJesusChrist]

Nice to see you around here.

Although I have been critical of a lot of George W.'s policies lately, I do believe that an invasion upon Iraq is both imminent and warranted.

What do you think?

[FreedominJesusChrist]

You are from the great state of Illinois too?

[FreedominJesusChrist]

"Where did they go?"

To bed. Some people have stuff to do in the morning.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

LOL! I stopped doing that when the lectured me about it. Apparently, there are two different standards. Maybe it is just their version of giving a "shout-out." LOL.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

"Good Night Fred, BTW don't worry....FIJC still likes you, Tex was just a fling :-)"

I have always genuinely liked Fred :)

Texasforever is probably old enough to be my grandpa...don't get all freaky on us now.

[Jefferson Adams]

Hey, FIJC, good to see you too :)

I dunno about Iraq - I'm not 100% convinced either way. On the one hand, Saddam is definitely a bad guy and he may cause trouble in the future. On the other hand, we're supposed to be a nation of laws, and attacking Saddam because he MIGHT do something is a lot like the whole liberal mindset of "we don't like him, doesn't matter whether he's done anything or not, he's bad, let's get him."

A good example of the way this mindset is held by the current administration is the arrest of Padilla. While I have no doubt that he's a bad guy, the idea expressed by Bush that "He's a bad man, and he needs to be in prison," whether they even had anything to charge him with, is EXTREMELY dangerous in an allegedly "free" country which supposedly has the rule of law. Frankly, it amazes me that most "conservatives" have no understanding of how slippery that slope is. When the president can arbitrarily have someone - an American citizen - locked up because "he's a bad man," even though he's broken no laws that we know of, we are no longer free.

And the same applies to Iraq. The stakes are certainly higher, but where do we draw the line? And will the same "conservatives" who think it's OK for Bush to do things like that think it'll be OK when President Hillary or whoever does it to "conservatives"? When people start being arrested, without charge, because of "anti-government hate-speech"?

[Jefferson Adams]

Ah, Steppenwolf :)

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Texasforever is probably old enough to be my grandpa...don't get all freaky on us now.

Apparently he is (look at his profile). What's "freaky" is seeing a twenty year-old kid talking to a man his age about oil and being "corrupted".

To be fair, I thought I saw you admit that it was probably inappropriate - but you can't blame people for teasing you about it now that it's out there.

[justshe]

You might be interested in JohnHuang's comments today, HERE in case you missed it. MOST interesting.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

Dear Beckie,

I really do pity you and your life. I don't care enough to psychoanalyze you, but it's clear that in addition to having no social outlets, you choose to hang out with people twice (or more) your age.

That is not a problem, in and of itself, but your lack of life's experience too often contradictorily affects the manner in which you try to communicate.

Often times, you ask people to stay on topic while at the same time, you indulge your narcissism by telling complete strangers the personal, intimate details about yourself. Psssst........most not only don't care, but they are turned off by it. But I digress.......

Has it ever occurred to you that whenever you show up, a thread seems to take a predictable turn and an inordinate amount of time is spent babysitting your need for attention?

Frankly, Howlin was so right in suggesting that we ignore you. If you only have a few of your fellow desperados to talk with, you may fade away into the land of pierced navels, prom courts and dorm gossip.

Somehow it just doesn't quite fit into this forum......no matter how many "any-ol'-Freeper-in-a-storm" type of posters latch onto your adolescence.

Good luck,
Southflank

[justshe]

Are we STILL here?