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?
You missed the point. The problem with Nader isn't that he made millions. Neither is that the problem with GWB.
Do a little research into Nader, the organization he started called the Center for the Study of Responsive Law, and the history of OSHA.
You're obviously losing your mind. You haven't 'caught' me in SQUAT. You post revisionist articles concerning the Posse Comitatus Act and this is supposed to disprove what I said.....how? I posted earlier that I had to go for a while and it had absolutely nothing to do with some post from you that I wasn't even aware existed. The ORIGINAL Posse Comitatus Act didn't mention the National Guard, the Marines and the Air Force because they didn't EXIST at the time, you ninny. Our Founders realized that a NAVY could not effectively be used AGAINST the population and, thus, did not include it by name. Quite reading revisionist writings from the last hundred years and go back and read the original works.
Media Bias would be one reason.
Seems to me you'd be siding against Galileo during the Dark Ages. I mean, heck, he only had a small following, so that obviously means that his ideas and observations were wrong.
Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm they could have given Old Harry 24/7 news coverage and I STILL would not vote for him
According to quite a few folks on this thread, it does. As I stated in another post - Harry Browne may be something of idiot but even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Thanks for the kind support.
You're a bigger idiot that the ninny who SAID she 'caught me in lie". Some of us must work for a living, go by to pick up groceries and then come home a cook dinner for three children and a husband. What time do they lock you back in your cell there at the institution, dear?
Nice try. It's not about ideas or whether they are right or wrong in these cases.
It's about sour grapes, jealousy, frustration and all those very unbecoming traits that are hard to hide.
Please don't pull the "What's wrong with criticizing the president" line either. There's nothing wrong with honest criticism.
However, those who have tried in vain to sit where George Bush sits today and failed, have an ulterior motive for practically everything they say. Last I checked, none of them did a thing to improve my life or yours.
BZZZZTTTTT! WRONG answer! See Mulder's post #262 above:
Only eight years ago, Republicans, led by Newt Gingrich (who was deemed "unelectable" by the elites) won a massive electoral victory.
No, if "media bias" were the answer, Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America would never have won.
Only one percent went to Harry Browne. To the simple that means that nobody agreed with him but Losertarian Homie knows that it's just proof that the Man is keeping Harry Brown down!
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.