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?

[RedBloodedAmerican]

So was that the whole point of the last several days? So you could have someone to whine to?

[RedBloodedAmerican]

Who has time to waste picking apart a bunch of liberal claptrap. Would you really like to?

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

[Mo1]

OK then .. problem solved ..

[semaj]

"Conservatives can stay.....Contrarians gotta go. "

What's your definition of a Conservative or a contrarian? KentuckyWomen has been the recipient of a lof heat simply for espousing the desire to have our Conservative leaders respect and uphold the Constitution. I think Harry Browne is a nutcase but I understand where he is coming from in this article. Does being a "Good Conservative" mean that we have to follow our leaders blindly and unquestioningly? Those that would suggest so are the one's who should start packing. This country was meant for better men and women.

[VaBthang4]

Actually I would like to take the credit for issuing the Coup Of Grass to KantukeeWoman.

But you did hit her with one...

Perhaps it was overwhelming synergy that dispatched her.

...or her Parents came home.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Do you mind if I ask what this means?

No, just wondering if anbody has been banned on this thread, and trying to figure out what gets a person banned, thats all, nothing else.

BigMack

[Howlin]

I bow to you both. As everybody here knows, I am a vapid poster with no facts to back me up. :-)

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Okay, thanks. I think the only one who was banned was the person who posted the article...but I'm not sure.

[Isle of sanity in CA]

George W. Bush seems to be about as conservative as a politician can be at this time and still be elected.

Ridiculing and tearing down our President - even if he's not as conservative as some of us would like - is not constructive, IMO. Instead we need to be changing the hearts and minds of our neighbors and our young people, so that more conservative politicians have a chance of being elected. We also need to be helping conservative candidates at lower levels of government - because those are the foundations of our government, and because national politicians usually begin as local politicians.

So right on! I actually was in a petty flame war earlier (wrong of me) trying to argue this point about Davis vs. Simon but couldn't explain it properly. I wish I had read this first..

[lonestar]

The one that's REALLY getting on my nerves lately is the one about how the people with BRAINS have all been banned!

Some brains have been "fried."

[Howlin]

Personally, I'd like to see some of these banned:

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

I'm guessing here, but I'm thinking he thinks some more BRAINS have been banned.

No, just trying to figure out what gets a person banned, I've been posting for over a year on the Never Ending Story thread, and lurk on the rest of FR, kinda sheltered I guess :) I've been seeing alot threads where folks have been banned lately and was just asking, I should of been more clear on my question.

BigMack

[woofie]

I bow to you both. As everybody here knows, I am a vapid poster with no facts to back me up

You too? Im vapid also....

[Howlin]

Have you SEEN the threads, or have you SEEN people saying people are banned?

There is quite a difference between what is claimed and what apparently goes on.

[semaj]

"This country has become exactly what Washington, Jefferson, and others warned us against - and most Americans are cheering it on."

Bears repeating. Wake up people.

[Howlin]

Well, vapid is the best thing I've been called lately..... :-)

[jwalsh07]

After reading through this thread, I've noticed that no one has really argued any of the points made in this article. All I see is flaming of supporters of the article, and insults toward the author. hmmmm....

Well Angus me lad, lets start here:

Was Osama bin Laden culpable in the massacre at the WTC?

[VaBthang4]

"KentuckyWomen has been the recipient of a lof heat simply for espousing the desire to have our Conservative leaders respect and uphold the Constitution."

If it were that simple I would defend her myself...but it isnt...

1. "Give 'em time my friend. They're working diligently to overturn posse comitatus even as we speak. Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war!! I just hope that we're not the ones that end up being dog meat!!"

2. "If Krintoon and his administration had tried to get away with only half of the unconstitutional, liberty erasing measures passed under Bush, the self-described conservatives in this Country would be up in arms."

3. "One is becoming a monarchy while the other is a dictatorship."

4. "Just between the Patriot Act and the No Child Left Behind Act, both of which Pres. Bush has supported wholeheartedly, we will no longer recognize this Country with 10 years (if it takes that long) and all this never-ending "war" business is nothing more than to keep the sheople feeling fearful and crying to big-brother to keep them safe. Frankly, I'm getting pretty darned sick of it. I won't even begin to get into the who knew what and when regarding 9/11 here."

5. "It wasn't freedom that was attacked (at least not by any 'terrorists'), it was the policians interventionist, empire building policies that were 'attacked'"

That is much more than simply wanting the President to honor the Constitution.

[lonestar]

Dead brain alert!

Should we trust George W. Bush?

No.

He is a politician, and he is a Bush.

That's enough for me.

That's all WhiteGuy knows and all he needs or wants to know!