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?

[Mo1]

WOW .. you've seen the light??

[Howlin]

They will learn to read the Constitution for themselves

And what's gonna happen when THEY have a different interpretation than you do?

[Lumberjack]

Not surprisingly, you've chosen not to answer my questions and instead resort to personal attack. Gee Wally, that's such a shocker.

FWIW, I'm sure I do seem egotistical to you. You see, in order to follow a leader blindly requires incredibly low self esteem. Somebody with normal self esteem, I'm sure, appears arrogant. So be it. Now. Would you care to answer my questions, or do you prefer another round of Personal Attacks For Fun And Profit?

[mrsmith]

(Thought I'd give you another chance.)

"the Barbary Pirates and our DECLARED war on same? "

Are you referring to Jefferson's attacks on them without congressional authorization...

Jefferson's attacks on them with congressional authorization but without a general declaration of war...

Or Madison's attacks on them after a general declaration of war by congress?

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.

[lonestar]

I certainly don't have all the answers but I certainly seem to know more of my history than do you.

Know history? You are living in the 18th century.

I've had my mind changed on quite a few things that I was initially wrong about. Of course, it took people who were better informed than I am there were willing to trade information in a civil manner to do it.

"Civil manner?" I believe you started the name-calling.

Something that I have never seen you do on any thread that we've ever posted on. I honestly doubt you capable of such an exchange.

I repeat, I never heard of you until tonight so it's possible I impressd you more than you impressed me. However, I do believe you have me confused with somebody else.

[woofie]

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

[KentuckyWoman]

She did catch you in a lie and it isnt my fault that you are a woman and mother...

When the drugs wear off, I'd be very interested in knowing where you think someone 'caught' me in a lie. As I stated earlier, posting a revised account of history does not make me a liar. It only makes the poster look uninformed.

[KentuckyWoman]

You know, I used to wonder how Germans could follow Hitler in 1932 and up through 1936. They were smart, educated, technical, worldly, and still they followed.

I used to wonder the exact same thing. Now, I'm pretty sure most here, too, will go along quietly convinced that it is all some terrible mistake that will be quickly rectified by the Republicans.

[MJY1288]

LOL

[VaBthang4]

"posting a revised account of history does not make me a liar."

***BILL CLINTON LANGUAGE BARRIER ALERT***

[Lumberjack]

Trial by jury. Unless you can guarantee me that everybody in Gitmo isn't a U.S. citizen (hint: you can't). The right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure (hint: search and peek recon in your home, without telling you). Right to a speedy trial (hint: how long have they been in Gitmo? How do you know they're terrorists? Heck, do you even know their identities?).

Or how about TIPS. Yes, it is revamped for the moment. But it was tried now, wasn't it? It will be back, mark my words.

Should I go on?

[SirAngus]

Personal Attacks For Fun And Profit

LMAO

[MJY1288]

ROFLMAO, You don't understand.... It's an "is" thing

[Paulus Invictus]

On Sept. 14, 2001, Congress gave him permission to go after terrorists and those that support them. Read the resolution!

[Texasforever]

Should I go on?

When are you going to start?

[Lumberjack]

Sums up my feelings as well.

Well met. Nice to see you here.

[MJY1288]

So because you suspect there might be some american citizens at GITMO and we almost had a "TIPS" program enacted this is why you are lost your freedom and liberty?

WOW, I'm impressed

[Howlin]

Hey, you're the one whose been all over this thread, telling us all how little we know, not me.

[MJY1288]

You should go on Donahue, He will worship you