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?

[Miss Marple]

Oh, yes, please go on. please explain to me how Al Qaeda and Taliban terorists from Afghanistan, captured in a military operation, are to be guaranteed the same courtesies as US citizens, particularly while their cohorts are still plotting against us.

Gee, let's have them all on trial with Derschowitz as their counsel.

I personally dont care if those guys sit in Gitmo for the next 20 years.

[GingisK]

...should we care what Harry Browne has to say?

Harry Browne says, "Trust yourselves, your own intellect, and the Constitution." He quotes the Founding Fathers. He tells you to compare the political promises to the realities that have become history. He tells you to study the founding documents and compare them to the current situation in your government. George Bush says, "Trust me". His father said, "Read my lips...".

And then you choose GWB as the one you trust.

[Torie]

I guess I'm just amazed that people continue to line up so enthusiastically behind whatever leader is at the podium telling them to give up their liberties and lives.

Putting aside the validity of your premise, which I think is specious (this nation has a culture that will leave it secure from any such overreaching, and it is that culture that is our most reliable protection), if a suitcase nuke slipped through, and killed a couple of hundred thousand, and poisoned with radiation a million more, your view might lose a bit of traction. There needs to be a balance of course, but it needs to be a tough minded one. That doesn't mean that everything being done is perfecto: much of what the airports are doing doesn't make much sense, and is an overreaction, but that in the larger scheme of things is trivial, except of course for all those airlines going bankrupt.

[Texasforever]

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?).

They are captured enemy combatants from Afghanistan. Plonk.

[KentuckyWoman]

Or is it that we are much further along the line of losing our Country than we know?

DING! DING!! We have a winner!! People just don't want to face up to it because that would necessitate action on their part and acceptance of part of the blame for allowing it to happen. Something that is keeping some of us awake at night, frankly.

[Howlin]

Not only that, "they" are going to come in the middle of the night and take him away!

[lonestar]

Ain't it the truth!

[VaBthang4]

"Trial by jury. Unless you can guarantee me that everybody in Gitmo isn't a U.S. citizen"

LOL! Can you show me one Terrorist there who is an American citizen? Get real...no American has lost that right....next.

"The right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure"

You still have that right...if the government was treading on it then the Supreme Court would deal with it. Searching your home requires a warrant. That is not unreasonable.

You havent lost your right to a speedy trial...? What law banned that?

"Or how about TIPS."

How about it? What right does that violate?

"Should I go on?"

Yes, please do...

[Mo1]

Rather than voting "for" someone, they were voting "against" someone, and in so doing they selected the guy with the highest poll numbers

If I wanted to throw my vote way for anyone just to make a point .. I would have voted for Nader or Buchanan

I didn't .. I voted for a man that could best lead our country and that was GW Bush ..

Is Bush a perfect man .. No he is not .. but then tell me what man is

[Texasforever]

right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure (hint: search and peek recon in your home, without telling you).

Has been law for decades. Completely subject to judicial review and totally irrelevant to this administration.

Right to a speedy trial (hint: how long have they been in Gitmo?

All are subject to military tribunal if tried at all.

[Lumberjack]

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.

Humanity requires that honest people at least try to help somebody in need. If they don't want help, then what can you or I or any of the few remaining liberty minded folks do? Words only go so far when falling on a brick wall, and frankly, I tire of it after a while myself.

Though it is a wonderful study in mass psychosis, that much is certain.

Speaking of tired, that is what I am. Its off to the land of nod for me after this post (maybe one more, I don't know, I'm pretty tired). Hope you fare well here tonight. I'll talk to you tomorrow.

[Mo1]

No, we should not.

So when Saddem passes his little bag of goodies to the nutcases of the world that HATE Americans

What will you say then??

[MJY1288]

It happens everyday Howlin.... Admit it :-)

[Torie]

Roosevelt had executed in a secret miliary trial those German saboteurs during time of war, and SCOTUS upheld him. Maybe FDR overreacted, but our precious liberties mustg not reach so far as to constitute a suicide pact. There must be a certain level of realistic practicality. Civil trials for some of these folks would be ludicrous. The standard for incarcerating these foreign perps cannot be beyond a reasonable doubt, and cannot be allowed to be a media circus run on Arab TV, at least until the threat subsides. JMO.

[deport]

when are we gonna hear some wild inflammatory rhetoric?

What.... facts don't qualify? lol. I just post other peoples rhetoric.... and get called a liar or ignorant s.o.b. Suits my just fine...

[Howlin]

What right does that violate?

The right to be a crook with nobody telling on you?

[Texasforever]

Something that is keeping some of us awake at night, frankly.

Try Nitol

[SirAngus]

Harry Browne says, "Trust yourselves, your own intellect, and the Constitution." He quotes the Founding Fathers. He tells you to compare the political promises to the realities that have become history. He tells you to study the founding documents and compare them to the current situation in your government. George Bush says, "Trust me". His father said, "Read my lips..."

But, but, H. Browne only got 1% of the vote!!! 1%!!!!!! He's a loser!!!! GWB is a winner, get it? A winner...(sarcasm)

[MJY1288]

A homeschooler too, "Paranoia 101" is the major I guess