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?

[KentuckyWoman]

feelin_poorly signed up 2002-08-27.
This account has been banned.

Not surprising. feelin_poorly is just following in the footsteps of many of thinkers who have dared to question the Bush administration here. It's a sad commentary that a civil discussion can't be carried on with a person who doesn't tow the party line.

[justshe]

~~~I trust me. Nobody else.~~~

Inquiring minds want to know.......do you ever have to ask yourself for a second opinion? :-)

[lonestar]

Neither, given current conditions.

If I were you, I'd get out now. There ae no walls or people with guns keeping you here.

Take Alec and Cher with you when you go.

[justshe]

Does one have to make a formal request to be pinged?

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

All you need to know to know this is total crap is to see the author's name.

Yes, I know. I realized this man was completely insane when he made public his position on military action after 9/11. The only reason I didn't know it before that was that I paid no attention to him.

[KentuckyWoman]

Total BS.

Oh REALLY? Then kindly explain to me why so many posters (many of which had been posting here a LONG time and were well thought of) have been banned during the last few months for nothing more than posting something that questioned something the current administration is doing? I didn't like those in DC ignoring and rewriting the Constitution to suit their own purposes and visions when the Dems were in the white house and I'm not hypocritial enough to tolerate the same things just because the Republicans are doing it now.

[VaBthang4]

LOL...

"Not surprising. following in the footsteps of many of thinkers who have dared to question the Bush administration here. It's a sad commentary that a civil discussion can't be carried on with a person who doesn't tow the party line."

So why havent you received the Left-foot of Fellowship?

[MissAmericanPie]

I don't even trust me, I hold a gun on myself while I shave my legs, just to be sure I don't cut myself.=o)

[TexasCajun]

Looks like WorldNetDaily must be trying to improve its chances of getting its congressional press credentials approved.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

I think lies from the pit of liberal hell that is a bunch of crap gets deleted. If you miss it so much, why not change your address?

[Howlin]

Then kindly explain to me why so many posters (many of which had been posting here a LONG time and were well thought of) have been banned during the last few months for nothing more than posting something that questioned something the current administration is doing?

You'll have to take that up with Jim Robinson.

[lonestar]

P.S. I forgot--take Barbra with you, too.

[KentuckyWoman]

If I were you, I'd get out now. There ae no walls or people with guns keeping you here.

Funny how that's always the reply from people who can't defend their blind loyalty to the party. This is MY Country, too, bubba and, unless I woke up in Russia this morning, I can still, at least, SAY what I want and do what I can to effect a change without being shot for it. Give it time, however, and I may not be able to say what with 'hate-crimes', the Patriot Act, Carnivore, Echelon and the FEMA "temporary cities" being implemented even as we speak.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

Why not comment on the "facts" and "truth" in the article?

You are commenting on this poster being banned and blaming FR for not supporting garbage being posted.

You really believe this trash?

[PBRSTREETGANG]

If only we could somehow bring these two together...

then we could start the "Harry Browne-Bush" party.
(Oh wait, that's not such a good idea after all.)

(For the record I don't trust any politicians.)

[VaBthang4]

"Oh REALLY? Then kindly explain to me why so many posters (many of which had been posting here a LONG time and were well thought of) have been banned during the last few months for nothing more than posting something that questioned something the current administration is doing?"

Obviously House cleaning...

During every administration be it Liberal or Conservative you are going to get your idological opposition but you will also get contrarians who rail against everything.

FreeRepublic became a famous place to come and discuss your oppostion to what was happening in our government. Now that Conservatives have taken back the White House...you are starting to see who the Conservatives are....and who were the sycophant contrarians.

Contrarian and Conservative arent one and the same.

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

IMHO

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Then kindly explain to me why so many posters (many of which had been posting here a LONG time and were well thought of) have been banned during the last few months for nothing more than posting something that questioned something the current administration is doing?

Who has this happened to? Seriously. Are you absolutely sure that was the reason?

I honestly do not believe that someone would be banned for merely posting an article from World Net Daily. There has to be more to it than that.

[GingisK]

Harry Browne proves why he's more politically irrelevant than Cynthia McKinney.
Unfortunately, HB is irrelevant because Americans revere their leaders rather than their Constitution. It is a shame to see otherwise decent people become blinded by the perceived "brilliance" of their leaders.
You have non-existent yet highly obnoxious airport security that is instantiated by GWB. You have American citizens in jail without a trial under GWB. You have an open border with a hostile nation during GWB's watch. Yet you dance with glee simply because you voted for the man that is in the oval office. Is GWB better than WJC? BY A LANDSLIDE!! Is GWB the best man for the job? Not by a long-shot.

[niki]

This account has been banned.

Do you know why?