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?

[ravingnutter]

Apparently you did not read the whole post, the jist of the argument was in the second article on that post. It stated that Joe Biden, a Democrap, submitted a proposal to the WH pertaining to an amendment to the PCA or Posse Commitatus Act, just in case you don't understand acronyms. Bush had the PCA reviewed to make sure Biden's proposal was not accurate in it's assertions. THAT was the story you heard. You apparently did not realize that Ridge and Rumsfeld, the Bush administration as you call them, rejected the idea. You know...you are the one that admitted you don't come here much any more...maybe if you did, you just might learn something...

And revisionist articles, I think not, the first part of that post is based on the law, not your paranoia...

[MJY1288]

When should we do something about Iraq? After he develops a nuclear weapon? After he supplies Al-Qaeda with Nukes? After he violates the soveriegnty of another nation?

Just in case you have forgotten, Saddam Hussain is a clear and present danger to us and the entire middle east. Saddam has publically said he supports all terrorist acts carried out against us as well as Israel. He even sends the $25,000 to the family of terrorist who carries out a suicide bombing. And you worry about his rights?

What the problem is with you 18th century patriots is you have trouble understanding that things have changed since the days of Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson. We face threats on a global scale now, and if you want to bury your head in the sand and ignore the fact that we are in a different world. You wont have to worry about our precious Constitution, because one of these dictators or religous finatics will get their hands on a nuke and use it against us. And if you think that Saddam, Osama, or Arafat wouldn't launch a nuke if they had the opportunity, you're living in a fantasy land.

The fact is we have to protect our freedoms by making sure the finatics in the world don't get their hands on weapons of mass destruction, No longer can we rely on the Pacific and the Atlantic Oceans to protect from an attack from abroad. Terrorist and those who support them rely upon people like you to make it easy for them to survive, because you would rather wrap yourself in the Constitution and wait for an attack than go after them before they do.

[Wondervixen]

>>1,000,000,000,000 X 0 = 0.

You Erred...The liberal's level of honesty is slightly LESS than zero, so, yes, it does compute.

[ravingnutter]

Ninny? Now, like Howlin, I am beginning to doubt your age...does mommy know you are playing with her computer?

[Mulder]

It had that unfortunate populist tone that well, does not comport with the facts, that gets my hair standing on end more than most statements of an ideological nature do

It was a simple explanation of a problem created by complex government rules, that the same government claims can only be solved by more complex government rules.

Some things are broke, such as the fact that the US perscription drug consumers basically pay for drug research that benefits the world, while Western Europe and Canada are free riders....

I wasn't aware of that, but it doesn't surprise me considering US taxpayers basically support the rest of the world one way or the other. The solution is to send the Canadians and Europeans the bill, not creating a massive new burearcracy.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

"Bush likes to hear all sides of the argument before making a decision"

Most of the time, yes he does.

"I kind of like that .. if he was surrounded by a bunch of yes men .. then I would be worried .."

I wouldn't call the Pentegon and the Defense Department "yes" men, but I trust them to do what is necessary for the country. And who knows that the NSA has been up to lately, afterall, they are the spooks for the Defense Department, LOL. Anyway, Rumsfield is a tough guy and isn't afraid to do what's right. Powell on the other hand, would rather delegate until the end of the world, or until another catastrophic terrorist attack, to do anything worthwhile about Hussein.

[KentuckyWoman]

Amen Sister! I'll say it. Bush is evil!

I'm not ready to say that he is necessarily evil but he does seem to be a puppet of his "new world order" father (which is almost as bad). I have to take part of the responsibilty for the current state of affairs, though, 'cause I actually voted for him because Spotted Al Bore scared me worse. I see little hope of our Country being turned around any time in the near future because, as you can see from this thread, there are simply too many cheerleaders for the two major parties that don't really care what happens as long as they think 'their' guy is calling the shots never stopping to realize that pre-WWII Germany was also a Constitutional Republic that woke up one day to find themselves living under the regime of a tyrannical madman. Those who refuse to learn from history...

[oldtimer]

We give it up little by little. The sheeple don't whine until the killing gates.

Libs, even the ones with furry faces in the Universities, don't get the picture until they are offed in a firing squad.

Freedom teaches through history that it is fleeting, and not to be taken for granted.

[justshe]

They also stand on the sidelines and hold intellectual spittting contests while others defend their sorry asses.

[Mo1]

Oh I think you know what I mean

[MJY1288]

Yup, and give us a lecture on freedom, There is a name for this syndrome, it's called "Cranial Rectumitis"

[Wondervixen]

>>It is possible to be liberal (liberal == deluded) and honest. Plenty of dumb, ignorant, but honest people out there.

Wrong...To be a true "liberal", you have to buy into one or more of the liberal philosophies (ie; abortion rights. feminism, environmentalism, animal rights, global warming, tax cuts being only for the rich, etc).

Those who are deluded and who are honest but stupidly gullible are merely democrats who haven't officially been indoctrinated into liberalism.

[ravingnutter]

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.

Yeah right...caught you in another one, unless it was before 9:30 this morning sweetie...for some reason the search I did on "profile" and "find in forum" did not reveal anything before that...I did learn how vile you are...paranoia sucks and you apparently have anger management issues as well, I will pray for you...

[FreedominJesusChrist]

The most New World Order'ish person on Bush's staff is Colin Powell. Powell would rather delegate until a nuclear or biological attack, to do anything worthwhile about Hussein.

Rumsfield and the Pentegon however, are not the New World Order types. I trust their advise to Bush and it seems to be to invade Iraq and kill Hussein. Obviously, putting a bounty on Hussein's head isn't doing the trick, so we are going to have to do it ourselves.

You forget that the U.S. Constitution does allow the President the Constitutional authority to send U.S. troops overseas without the authorization of Congress. After a certain amount of time, if Congress still doesn't like it, our troops will come home. In time though, I believe that President Bush will have the full support of Congress. He already has the support of the majority of American people at this point.

[mrsmith]

Given your ignorance and confusion about the Barbary wars I probably shouldn't confuse you further with Washington's war on the indians, or Adams' Quasi war with France, which in addition to Jefferson's war on the Barbary pirates, were ALL done by mere congressional authorizations .

Apparently out of ignorance and not malice, you are rewriting history and the actions of our Founders to create a new Constitution that conforms to your view.
But to a lover of the Constitution our Founders bequethed us it is their deeds and words that illuminate and define the document.

It is a shame you don't want to learn about our Founders, you might not like all they did but even a moderate effort to learn about them would enhance your understanding of the Constitution and politics in general.

[KentuckyWoman]

He didn't really mean to kill thousand and thousands of his OWN people ..

He didn't think those chemicals would kill people when he tested them out

Noooooooooooooooooo .. Saddam is a realllly nice guy who meant no harm .. it was just an accident and he didn't really mean it when he declare war on Americans .. he was just misunderstood

Hmm.. did our government's burning of civilians at WACO give another government some right to come in here and overthrow our government? What about the murder of Vicky Weaver and all the no-knock raids gone wrong? What about the poisoning of American soldiers with untested 'vaccinations' that have now been proven to be deadly? If these atrocities by our government (plus, remember, WE have nukes, too) don't give carte blanche to some other country to do fly-overs and inspections here, what makes you think that we are justified? Because we're on the side of right? Who gets to decide? You? Me? The UN? oh puhleeze.

[ravingnutter]

Luv it!-- "numbnuts"

Ahhh...brings back memories...that is how I got my "nick", LOL!

[Texasforever]

[ravingnutter]

ROTFLMAO!

[Cato]

KentuckyWoman-
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.-H

You are a wimp. Can't even say censorship.

CATO