Conservatives Should Support the President Now and in November Because…

Jewish World Review, January ^ | January 13, 2004 | Martha Zoller

[quidnunc]

…They Asked for His Kind of Leadership

You hear it in the coffee shops all over the "red areas" of the map. Everyone knows that is where the real politics is discussed in America. Conservatives are asking themselves, "What was the President thinking?" They might be talking about No Child Left Behind, or steel tariffs or the signing of many less than conservative bills.

In the coffee shops in the "blue areas," liberals don't sit around much. They are too angry and busy to stop for a while but many are thinking that President Bush is the most conservative president in years, since "oh, my God, Reagan," and he must be stopped.

Both of these assessments cannot be true and after spending years looking at politics, I took my first serious stand on a candidate in 1968 at the tender age of 9, if both sides are mad at you, you are probably on the right track. So why should conservatives and moderates support the President, now on issues and later this year at the ballot box?

-snip-

Based on the history of this President, we better not count him out till we see how things unfold. He is what conservatives asked for in a President. He cut taxes, got our economy going again and lives and breathes the safety of this country and the people in it. When it is all said and done, George W. Bush does what he believes is right for the American people and he is willing to stand on his record in November.

-snip-

[Texasforever]

Yes, Bush Sr. abandoned the party.

I guess you mean by raising taxes. Did Reagan "abandon" the party when he raised taxes that to date have cost us 500 billion dollars or did you buy his "revenue enhancement" dodge? Did Reagan "abandon" the party when he raised social security payroll taxes 30%? Did Reagan “abandon” the party when he publicly lobbied for the Brady Bill his first year out of office? Did Reagan “abandon” the party when he signed the first hand gun registration bill as govenor?

[Consort]

If Tancredo's not running and you write his name in, then he'll become just another loser.

[k2blader]

If they're not Patsies then they're most likely to be Keyesters, Losertarians or Constipationists.

Frothing hatred does not become you.

[TheFrog]

Good, I don't need to debate with fools!

[Warren_Piece]

There’s a place in the world for the angry young man
With his working class ties and his radical plans
He refuses to bend, he refuses to crawl,
He’s always at home with his back to the wall.
And he’s proud of his scars and the battles he’s lost,
And he struggles and bleeds as he hangs on the cross-
And he likes to be known as the angry young man.

Give a moment or two to the angry young man,
With his foot in his mouth and his heart in his hand.
He’s been stabbed in the back, he’s been misunderstood,
It’s a comfort to know his intentions are good.
And he sits in a room with a lock on the door,
With his maps and his medals laid out on the floor-
And he likes to be known as the angry young man.

I believe I’ve passed the age of consciousness and righteous rage
I found that just surviving was a noble fight.
I once believed in causes too,
I had my pointless point of view,
And life went on no matter who was wrong or right.

And there’s always a place for the angry young man,
With his fist in the air and his head in the sand.
And he’s never been able to learn from mistakes,
So he can’t understand why his heart always breaks.
But his honor is pure and his courage as well,
And he’s fair and he’s true and he’s boring as hell-
And he’ll go to the grave as an angry old man.

[Nanodik]

Like many other Libertarians, he blames this country for 9-11, and hates Jews.

He probably blames the govt for 9/11, not the country. And some of my best friends are Jews.

[fly_so_free]

Yes, Bush Sr. abandoned the party?

Wrongo. People stayed home. Tell me was it worth it? The 8 years of Clinton-the price for staying home?

[nopardons]

I am NOT saying, nor even implying that are borders are locked down. But, the LP is in favolre of NO BORDERS;no scrutiny of them at all.

[Soylent Democrats]

there=their My fault.

[TheFrog]

No it simply means that we know and understand the past, obviously something you do not!

[Howlin]

Does it make you feel special to post crap like that?

[Texasforever]

Frothing hatred does not become you.

Oh the irony.

[Southack]

"There's a possibility I will vote for Burr, not sure though. The 'big tent' party is going to have some empty seats next time around. Conservatives are tired of being taken granted for by a party that just wants our votes"

Oh good grief, do you not even have the sense to see how childish such comments make you sound?

Bush has handed the Democrats their hands back to them severed, bloody, and on a platter. He has banned their precious Partial Birth Abortion. He's cut their precious taxes. He's dissed their precious International Criminal Court. He's withdrawn from their worshiped U.S. - CCCP ABM treaty that forbade any meaningful defense against nuclear missile attacks. He's stood up to the UN against their nonsensical Iraqi views, and he's told them to go get stuffed regarding their anti 2nd Amendment International Ban On Small Arms Trafficking Treaty.

Liberals and Leftists are still crying to this very day about Bush killing their beloved Kyoto Global Warming nonsense, too.

Bush has cleared federal restrictions out of the way so that lumberjacks can once again build new logging roads to serve as fire breaks in our federal forests. He's eased the red tape for introducing new Genetically Modified foods and seeds, as well as enabled new drugs to get to the market faster.

And you have the nerve to think that your vote is being taken for granted?! Sheesh...

[sinkspur]

He probably blames the govt for 9/11, not the country

And you agree with that, I suppose. The country votes for these people (whether YOU vote for them or not). You Libertarians who blame the government for what happened would just like to give bin Laden a hug for teaching us a lesson, right?

Then you wonder why the country despises the Libertarian Party.

[Two-Bits]

Excellent Post! We already saw what happened when we tried to teach the Republican Party a lesson by voting for Perot, eight years of Clinton. (I'm guilty as hell for that one)

Clinton was very destructive to this Country but we are surviving. Can we take another hit with a Clark, Dean or God Forbid, Hillary as Pesident?

The eight years of Clinton has brought this Country to what it is now. Who would have thought that we could be punished for just our thoughts. Who would have thought the same crime committed to two different people would have different consequences depending on your race, religion or sexual behavior? Who would have thought that the mere presence of a cross, navitity scene or simple Merry Christmas would bring out the lawyers to sue, sue sue. Who would have thought that a simple game of cops & robbers played in the schoolgrounds would have a child suspended for simply using their hands as a pretend gun. Who would have thought that a little boy innocent kiss to the most beautiful little girl in the class would result in suspension for a pre-adult male rapist. Who would have thought that the press's only job is to spin, spin, spin and not to report the truth? Who would have thought that the Boy Scouts would be fighting for their lives simply because they believe in their oath? Who would have thought that some Americans after experiencing one of the worse events since Pearl Harbor would still stand behind their sworn enemies? I wonder what we woulda thought after having another eight years of a Democrat as President?

[NewLand]

I'll be nice and reply that you are quite naive, Mr Frog. Here is but one example of how you use statistics in a meaningless fashion:

Dismantling Clinton's Scaffold of Executive Orders,
Miguel A. Faria Jr., M.D.
Monday, Jan. 29, 2001

Immediately after taking the oath of office, President George W. Bush issued four executive memoranda. One of them established a 60-day freeze on the regulations hastily issued by President Bill Clinton before leaving office. The freeze on administrative rules and regulations needs to be extended and converted into a veritable machine of executive repeals not only of regulations but also of actual executive orders.

Normally, executive orders are published in the Federal Register, and, if Congress does not challenge them, they become administrative laws. Some 50,000 pages of such administrative decrees have been published annually in this Register during the Clinton years. Most of them were not challenged and became de facto federal mandates.

The Clinton administration not only increased the number of them, but also abused this prerogative intended to assist the Executive Branch of government in implementing the laws passed by Congress. Under President Clinton, more than any other president, the Executive arrogated to itself, in effect, congressional lawmaking powers.

By mid-December 2000, President Clinton had issued 347 executive orders, which have far-reaching consequences. Among these, journalist Cliff Kincaid noted, there were 80 classified Presidential Decision Directives (PDDs) mandating secret, unilateral executive actions that impact on the freedom of Americans.

President Clinton, in fact, added a new dimension to these secret PDDs, which are not published anywhere – not even Congress is privy to them. One of them, PDD-25, assigned U.S. troops to serve under foreign U.N. commanders; another one established that U.N. treaties supersede the laws of the United States. In yet another secret order, the details of which are not known because they have not been made public, U.N. personnel are protected from civil or criminal prosecution for violation of U.S. laws while operating on U.S. soil.

The Clinton administration supported the U.N. notion of an International Criminal Court (ICC), a tribunal that could potentially prosecute Americans for alleged war crimes and other crimes committed while serving as "peacekeepers" in U.N. missions in faraway lands. It is repugnant to many sensible Americans that at the same time that an administration has favored such a sovereignty-eroding policy, it passed executive orders exempting U.N. personnel, many of them Third World thugs, from U.S. laws and American justice.(1)

While President Clinton was impeached for perjury and abuse of power in the cases of Monica Lewinsky and Paula Jones, the more serious charge of abuse of power in the issuance of secret, unconstitutional PDDs intended to bypass congressional approval is yet to be elucidated for the American people. Former Clinton adviser Paul Begala, in a candid moment, summarized this process of lawmaking as "stroke of the pen, law of the land, kind of cool!"

What exactly is included in some lesser known, secret PDDs and executive orders? It's still difficult to ascertain the content of some of these privileged executive orders because they remain secret.

Congress, for example, does not, to this date, have a copy of PDD-25, which Clinton signed in 1994. Yet this order was also used to authorize the U.N. to use American troops in U.N. operations. Moreover, on the basis of PDD-25, U.S. Army Specialist Michael New was court-martialed and discharged for refusing to wear a U.N. uniform on a U.N. mission.(2)

President Clinton used executive orders, PDDs, and "executive determinations" to decree what Congress refused to authorize via legislation. For example, PDDs were used to impose a new "sexual orientation" classification in the military, as well as to allow the Clinton administration to bomb and wage war on Yugoslavia (i.e., executive orders 13119, 13120, 12846, 12934, etc.) without having Congress declare war, as required by the Constitution. What all of these executive orders do is to usurp power by the Executive Branch of government at the expense of Congress, erode the liberties of the American people, and adversely tilt the balance of power imposed by the U.S. Constitution.

PDD-62, issued on the pretext of fighting terrorism, grants the FBI the power to maintain surveillance on Second Amendment groups and civic organizations opposed to the U.N., as well as "extremist" Christian fundamentalist groups.

PDD-63, supposedly signed to prevent unauthorized access to government computers, instead allows executive agencies to spy on the electronic communications of private citizens using the Internet.

Executive Order 13107, issued on December 4, 2000, sets aside 84 million acres in the Pacific Ocean, the largest protected area in the U.S. territories, preventing fishing (i.e., commercial and recreational) and the much-needed oil drilling that can be carried out in this largely desolate area.

Similar executive orders have designated national monuments in the Alaskan Wilderness Refuge and vast tracts of land in the West, including Wyoming, where private citizens have protested to no avail. With Executive Orders 13087 and 13132, President Clinton attempted to revoke our revered system of federalism and infringe on the 10th Amendment, which prevents the federal government from arrogating powers from the states granted to them by our Founding Fathers in the U.S. Constitution.

No president, Democrat or Republican, should wield such extra-constitutional power.

In particular, all of the inimical and impolitic U.N. orders that erode the sovereignty of these United States should be fully investigated, and all of those not in accord with our Constitution immediately abrogated. Call it a new campaign to correct the record and educate Americans on the constitutional limits of government, a Republican form of government exercised with the consent of the governed.

President George W. Bush needs to cancel all of the executive measures that were instituted specifically to circumvent the will of Congress. It was the U.S. Congress, after all, in which our Founding Fathers laid the legislative power of our constitutional government. It was, in fact, because Congress would not approve these measures injurious to the civil liberties of citizens that President Clinton, while smiling to the cameras of CNN and displaying his usual gregarious side to the American people, later manifested the other darker side of his nature and went ahead, nevertheless, and signed these deleterious measures.

President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Attorney General John Ashcroft, as soon as he is confirmed, have to move rapidly toward rescission of these harmful decrees. They have a lot of work ahead of them. Due diligence and exertion of this labor is necessary and fundamental in dismantling the tyrannical scaffold left behind by the previous administration, if we are to restore this nation to its former constitutional integrity.

References 1. Jasper, W.F. "International injustice: A UN criminal court is a dangerous idea in the making." The New American, April 13, 1998, pp. 21-26.
2. Kincaid, C. "Clinton's final dangerous days." AIM Report, December 2000, Washington, D.C. The AIM Report is a publication edited by media watchdog Reed Irvine. Jorge Maspóns, a student of American government, has also summarized in Spanish Clinton's executive orders for the benefit of Hispanic readers .

---------------

And, President Bush did rescind most of Clinton's PDD's...so the numbers you give for EO's under GWB don't tell the tale.

You guys just flat out DON'T GET IT!

[Sabertooth]

*"there is one major reason I won't supporting him. His supporters, within this forum and without. They have this whacked mentality, nearly to a person, where they savage anyone who disagrees with their precious "with us or against us" semi-god. You can't even have a converstation with them. I would never vote for a Dem, but I won't throw my lot in with a bunch of demented, unintelligent personality cultist tards."

*"What flighty, effeminate nonsense you spout. You have no clue."

Not sure you've found the way to AAABEST's heart, yet.

[k2blader]

What irony?

[Warren_Piece]

Don't you know? He's not 100% PERFECT! Damn, I'll bet none of these unappeasables are married, or they are married to codependent little doormats! WE DEMAND PERFECTION!!!!

[nopardons]

I wouldn't even date one...forget marrying one; if I were single.

They would have made up something, anything at all,in order to bash Bush. I doubt that any of them have ever read the " blue card " proposal, the Patriot Act , or anything else they fulminated over;but,even IF one of them has read whatever, they don't understand it.

The Patsies almost shredded FR in '00. Maybe the fringers will get their way and finally destroy FR this election cycle.