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?

[Howlin]

We're talking MAJOR SUCKING UP here, I just can't figure out why.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

You are being unfair and bringing up past threads where the conservation was completely relevant!

[Zack Nguyen]

Is Harry actually trying to convince us that Osama Bin Laden did not run the attacks?

[Mo1]

And you are doing a fine job of talking about everything but the topic

the curling your hair comment .. Oh please

[biffalobull]

Thank you Holy Spirit.

Anytime

[justshe]

LP didn't live up to your expectations?

[FreedominJesusChrist]

Well, for the record, I began by adding some very relevant comments and strong support for George W.

I just think that these night-time threads get a little kooky.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

Oh DeadMan is just full of beans. Pay no attention.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

I still post there.

I like talking to BeAChooser and others.

[justshe]

You have mail.

[Mo1]

maybe they didn't like her thong??

[Howlin]

I got mail. :-)

[MJY1288]

"We're talking MAJOR SUCKING UP here, I just can't figure out why."

Be careful when you emphisize portions of your post, She might do a 180 on the brown-nosing :-)

[Texasforever]

I guess I fell into insider jargon. LOL Sweet crude just means that the cost of refining is lower due to its viscosity and contaminant quotient. Trust me it is not erotic unless you have some under your backyard.

[Howlin]

By the way, it has been a while since I have been on a thread like this.

Yes, we know; it's been wonderful.

You promised you were leaving.

[Wondervixen]

Any possibility you could take your brain out of reverse & try first gear?

BTW - you think "tax cuts being only for the rich" is a liberal viewpoint? I thought they wanted to tax the rich.

"Tax CUTS being only for the rich" IS what the Liberals accuse us of, so yes, THEY want to tax the rich, don't they?

(2) freeing black people was a mistake, let's either reenslave them or ship 'em back to Africa

Correct me, if I'm wrong, but weren't the Northerners supposed to be the "Free the slaves" Republican bunch while the Southerners were the DEMOCRAT Slave Owners?

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

Gosh, Beckie. None of us have figured out that you're up to something here. You're really good at this.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

Aren't you funny tonight.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

Tex is always funny. He's a real man too. Pay attention.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Pssst: Do you know the difference between a public place with security concerns, your own home, and a person?