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]

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

For the simply reason that I VERY rarely post anything here lately. I was pinged to have a look at this one and made a comment with certain Bushbots simply couldn't let pass without starting with the personal attacks and statements to move somewhere else. Guess my days just been hectic enough to not be in mood for having my person impunged simply because I currently disagree with what a man I voted for is condoning.

[VaBthang4]

"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."

Everyone quick, GingisK for President.

Now lets see who is politically irrelavant.

~grin~

[KentuckyWoman]

If you miss it so much, why not change your address?

Tsk, Tsk, dearie. Your immaturity is showing again.

[justshe]

JimRob's words:

Here

Sheesh, why don't they just change the channel? Listen, you're all missing the point. I don't allow liberals on this website because I do not want to be responsible for pushing their marxist anti-American, anti-Freedom, anti-God political agenda. And I do not allow strings of profanity laden posts here or vulgarity or pornogaraphy because I do not want to promote that sort of trash. And I do not like religion bashing here because I do not agree with bashing or persecuting people because of their religious beliefs. And I do not like people ripping each others throats out on my website so I rule that out. And I do not like people advancing marxist/leftist/socialist/liberal agenda on my property so I rule out the marxist propagandists and tin-foil hat stuff. It's not that I care whether or not anyone reads this stuff (or have the right to say it), I just do not want to be responsible for promoting it. If others want to promote that garbage, then they should do it from their own websites. Free Speech Rules!! Freedom Rocks!!

362 posted on 8/28/02 7:45 PM Pacific by Jim Robinson

AND Here

You're making this way too complicated. Of course we post stuff to criticise or expose it. But when people post propaganda to smear our own candidates or causes, then that's something else. I hate what the leftists are doing to this country and I oppose their steady erosion of our Constitutional rights and of the Constitution itself, therefore I want to promote voting them out of office. This website was not named Free Republic by chance. Had I wanted to allow equal time or debating rights to liberals/marxist/propagandists, et al, I would've named it Socialist-Marxist-Debating.Society.com or perhaps DemocraticSocietyRUS.com.

363 posted on 8/28/02 8:08 PM Pacific by Jim Robinson

[RedBloodedAmerican]

I'm not the one who can't answer a simple question.

[VaBthang4]

Well certainly the above banned individual wasnt able to post as many times as you have in his short stay with us, so volume of posting isnt the deciding factor.

[PhiKapMom]

Thanks for the ping! This Bush Republican is so glad that I support President Bush after reading articles like this from someone who runs for President knowing they stand no chance. Guess that is one way to make a living.

For Browne to ask if we trust President Bush makes Browne look even more ridiculous than before! While I can state without reservation that I do trust President Bush, I can also state that I do not trust Browne at all because his views and mine are about 180!

[RedBloodedAmerican]

See, now you are presenting facts, and they don't like that. All the garbage in this original posted article has been dealt with and shoved aside in the past, and they still want to believe this drivel. By choice or by ignorance? I guess it is on a case-by-case basis.

[lonestar]

Neither, given current conditions.

You said it, not me!

Funny how that's always the reply from people who can't defend their blind loyalty to the party.

But, "schweetie," you're the one who doesn't want to be here.

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.

You're safe in Russia today; go try it in Iraq.

Give it time, however, and I may not be able to say what with 'hate-crimes'...

Oh! And now you think Bush signed the "hate crimes" bill in Texas?

[It'salmosttolate]

"Ideas are more dangerous than guns. We don't let our people have guns. Why should we let them
have ideas?" --Josef Stalin

[GingisK]

You really believe this trash?

Harry Browne is usually quite correct. If you would read articles and letters written by the Founding Fathers, you would discover that HB is fairly consistent with their views.

The telling question might be, "Do you really trust a polititian?". I don't. Not a single one of them.

[KentuckyWoman]

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

You really believe this trash?

I DID comment on the article and then all the Republican cheerleaders had to go and start with the personal attacks. Have you REALLY been paying attention to what is happening in DC or are you just getting your news here on FR for the last few months? Just between the Patriot Act and the No Child Left Behind Act, both of which Pres. Bush has supported wholeheartedly, we will no longer recognize this Country with 10 years (if it takes that long) and all this never-ending "war" business is nothing more than to keep the sheople feeling fearful and crying to big-brother to keep them safe. Frankly, I'm getting pretty darned sick of it. I won't even begin to get into the who knew what and when regarding 9/11 here. All the staunch Republicans don't WANT to hear ANYTHING that questions their (currently) favorite son. I'd take Reagan back, alzheimers and all, over ANY of the current crop of mud-slingers and socialists.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

Harry is finding the press is giving air time to people who want to jump on the Trash George with Lies bandwagon. Maybe he is thinking of running for Pres again. I am sure some on this thread will vote for him. If these folks aren't intelligent enough to see through this tripe, it makes me wonder why they voted for him in the first place.

[KentuckyWoman]

Now that Conservatives have taken back the White House

Are you sure about that? Name one, other than Ron Paul, in DC that seems to have even read, let alone understand, the Constitution that they took an oath to defend.

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

Oh, I see - either support anything that happens now since there's a Republican in the White House or go away. Gee, I could have sworn that years ago when I started posting here on FR that this was supposed to be a place for conservatives - not necessarily Republicans. Maybe I was incorrect, after all.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

Good grief. That is sad. I read on a local papers forum, and the liberals who post there sound allot like you (no offense, but I doubt any is taken). So it's all about oil then, isn't it?

[gunshy]

What if Bush had been running as a democrat on the same agenda, I'll bet you wouldn't have voted for him against, say, Jack Kemp. You only voted for him because he was running as a republican, and that doesn't make him any better than anybody else. And that is why we have so many rinos in the congress.

[Jefferson Adams]

I trust me. Nobody else.

You are wise, Grasshopper.

[KentuckyWoman]

I hate what the leftists are doing to this country and I oppose their steady erosion of our Constitutional rights and of the Constitution itself, therefore I want to promote voting them out of office.

But it's supposed to be okay for the Republicans to do it? That's the part that I'm evidently not understanding. You see, I couldn't possibly care less which party is doing the subverting of our Constitution or our Faith or our Morals or our Education System or anything else. I love my God, my Country and my family and no matter who or what seeks to remove the rights given to us by GOD, I will speak out against the encroachment. If I step on someone's toes who supports some certain politican just because he/she happens to belong to a certain political party, too darned bad.

[PhiKapMom]

If these folks aren't intelligent enough to see through this tripe, it makes me wonder why they voted for him in the first place.

That is an easy one -- doesn't seem like they could have thought too hard if they voted for him the first time. Cannot believe the press these anti-Bush folks are getting!

[McGavin999]

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.

WOW, is tinfoil expensive there in Kentucky?