Posted on 01/22/2004 7:07:09 AM PST by Wolfstar
ED. NOTE: On Tuesday evening, January 20, 2004, the President of the United States gave one of the most conservative State of the Union addresses in at least a generation. For a SOTU speech, it had a remarkably short spending wish list. Instead, it had passages such as those excerpted below — none of which would have been spoken by a Democrat or liberal (i.e., Leftist), or even a "RINO." Check it out:
[BEGIN EXCERPTS: Bold/underscore emphasis by Wolfstar]
Our greatest responsibility is the active defense of the American people. Twenty-eight months have passed since September 11th, 2001 — over two years without an attack on American soil. And it is tempting to believe that the danger is behind us. That hope is understandable, comforting — and false.
[SNIP]
The once all-powerful ruler of Iraq was found in a hole, and now sits in a prison cell. Of the top 55 officials of the former regime, we have captured or killed 45. Our forces are on the offensive, leading over 1,600 patrols a day and conducting an average of 180 raids a week. We are dealing with these thugs in Iraq, just as surely as we dealt with Saddam Hussein's evil regime.
Because of American leadership and resolve, the world is changing for the better. Last month, the leader of Libya voluntarily pledged to disclose and dismantle all of his regime's weapons of mass destruction programs, including a uranium enrichment project for nuclear weapons.
[SNIP]
Nine months of intense negotiations involving the United States and Great Britain succeeded with Libya, while 12 years of diplomacy with Iraq did not. And one reason is clear: For diplomacy to be effective, words must be credible, and no one can now doubt the word of America.
Many of our troops are listening tonight. And I want you and your families to know: America is proud of you. And my administration, and this Congress, will give you the resources you need to fight and win the war on terror.
I know that some people question if America is really in a war at all. They view terrorism more as a crime, a problem to be solved mainly with law enforcement and indictments. After the World Trade Center was first attacked in 1993, some of the guilty were indicted and tried and convicted, and sent to prison. But the matter was not settled. The terrorists were still training and plotting in other nations, and drawing up more ambitious plans. After the chaos and carnage of September the 11th, it is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers. The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States, and war is what they got.
[SNIP]
Some critics have said our duties in Iraq must be internationalized. This particular criticism is hard to explain to our partners in Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, the Netherlands — (applause) — Norway, El Salvador, and the 17 other countries that have committed troops to Iraq. As we debate at home, we must never ignore the vital contributions of our international partners, or dismiss their sacrifices.
From the beginning, America has sought international support for our operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we have gained much support. There is a difference, however, between leading a coalition of many nations, and submitting to the objections of a few. America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country.
We also hear doubts that democracy is a realistic goal for the greater Middle East, where freedom is rare. Yet it is mistaken, and condescending, to assume that whole cultures and great religions are incompatible with liberty and self-government. I believe that God has planted in every human heart the desire to live in freedom. And even when that desire is crushed by tyranny for decades, it will rise again.
[SNIP]
In the last three years, adversity has also revealed the fundamental strengths of the American economy. We have come through recession, and terrorist attack, and corporate scandals, and the uncertainties of war. And because you acted to stimulate our economy with tax relief, this economy is strong, and growing stronger.
You have doubled the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000, reduced the marriage penalty, begun to phase out the death tax, reduced taxes on capital gains and stock dividends, cut taxes on small businesses, and you have lowered taxes for every American who pays income taxes.
Americans took those dollars and put them to work, driving this economy forward. The pace of economic growth in the third quarter of 2003 was the fastest in nearly 20 years; new home construction, the highest in almost 20 years; home ownership rates, the highest ever. Manufacturing activity is increasing. Inflation is low. Interest rates are low. Exports are growing. Productivity is high, and jobs are on the rise.
These numbers confirm that the American people are using their money far better than government would have — and you were right to return it.
[SNIP]
We're requiring higher standards [in schools]. We are regularly testing every child on the fundamentals. We are reporting results to parents, and making sure they have better options when schools are not performing.
[SNIP]
We must continue to pursue an aggressive, pro-growth economic agenda. Congress has some unfinished business on the issue of taxes. The tax reductions you passed are set to expire. Unless you act — (applause) — unless you act — unless you act, the unfair tax on marriage will go back up. Unless you act, millions of families will be charged $300 more in federal taxes for every child. Unless you act, small businesses will pay higher taxes. Unless you act, the death tax will eventually come back to life. Unless you act, Americans face a tax increase. What Congress has given, the Congress should not take away. For the sake of job growth, the tax cuts you passed should be permanent.
Our agenda for jobs and growth must help small business owners and employees with relief from needless federal regulation, and protect them from junk and frivolous lawsuits.
Consumers and businesses need reliable supplies of energy to make our economy run — so I urge you to pass legislation to modernize our electricity system, promote conservation, and make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy.
My administration is promoting free and fair trade to open up new markets for America's entrepreneurs and manufacturers and farmers — to create jobs for American workers. Younger workers should have the opportunity to build a nest egg by saving part of their Social Security taxes in a personal retirement account. We should make the Social Security system a source of ownership for the American people.
[SNIP]
In two weeks, I will send you a budget that funds the war, protects the homeland, and meets important domestic needs, while limiting the growth in discretionary spending to less than 4 percent. This will require that Congress focus on priorities, cut wasteful spending, and be wise with the people's money. By doing so, we can cut the deficit in half over the next five years.
Tonight, I also ask you to reform our immigration laws so they reflect our values and benefit our economy.
[SNIP]
I oppose amnesty, because it would encourage further illegal immigration, and unfairly reward those who break our laws. My temporary worker program will preserve the citizenship path for those who respect the law, while bringing millions of hardworking men and women out from the shadows of American life.
[ED. NOTE: The precedent for guest worker programs goes back at least to the Eisenhower administration.]
[SNIP]
In January of 2006, seniors can get prescription drug coverage under Medicare. For a monthly premium of about $35, most seniors who do not have that coverage today can expect to see their drug bills cut roughly in half. Under this reform, senior citizens will be able to keep their Medicare just as it is, or they can choose a Medicare plan that fits them best — just as you, as members of Congress, can choose an insurance plan that meets your needs. And starting this year, millions of Americans will be able to save money tax-free for their medical expenses in a health savings account.
[SNIP]
On the critical issue of health care, our goal is to ensure that Americans can choose and afford private health care coverage that best fits their individual needs.
[SNIP]
Small businesses should be able to band together and negotiate for lower insurance rates, so they can cover more workers with health insurance. I urge you to pass association health plans. I ask you to give lower-income Americans a refundable tax credit that would allow millions to buy their own basic health insurance.
[SNIP]
To protect the doctor-patient relationship, and keep good doctors doing good work, we must eliminate wasteful and frivolous medical lawsuits. And tonight I propose that individuals who buy catastrophic health care coverage, as part of our new health savings accounts, be allowed to deduct 100 percent of the premiums from their taxes.
A government-run health care system is the wrong prescription. By keeping costs under control, expanding access, and helping more Americans afford coverage, we will preserve the system of private medicine that makes America's health care the best in the world.
[SNIP]
One of the worst decisions our children can make is to gamble their lives and futures on drugs. Our government is helping parents confront this problem with aggressive education, treatment, and law enforcement. Drug use in high school has declined by 11 percent over the last two years. Four hundred thousand fewer young people are using illegal drugs than in the year 2001.
[SNIP]
A strong America must also value the institution of marriage. I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization. Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Clinton. That statute protects marriage under federal law as a union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states.
Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.
[SNIP]
It's also important to strengthen our communities by unleashing the compassion of America's religious institutions. Religious charities of every creed are doing some of the most vital work in our country — mentoring children, feeding the hungry, taking the hand of the lonely. Yet government has often denied social service grants and contracts to these groups, just because they have a cross or a Star of David or a crescent on the wall. By executive order, I have opened billions of dollars in grant money to competition that includes faith-based charities. Tonight I ask you to codify this into law, so people of faith can know that the law will never discriminate against them again.
[SNIP]
The momentum of freedom in our world is unmistakable — and it is not carried forward by our power alone. We can trust in that greater power who guides the unfolding of the years. And in all that is to come, we can know that His purposes are just and true.
[END EXCERPTS]
This is just an excuse. There is no good excuse for doing some of the WRONG things he has done. The issue is not doing "what he thinks" is right, but doing what is actually right. He can do what he sincerely thinks is right and be sincerely wrong. Therefore, I will choose the candidate whose ideas about what is right and wrong best correlate with biblical moral absolutes.
After that, a compliant liberal media, considering the ad "newsworthy," played it again, and again and again ad nauseum gratuitously.
Much the same thing happens today, of course.
The Supreme Court is studying international law, they say it is in order to know how to rule on issues that will come before them when we are signed onto the FTAA treaty. They have said flat out that if international law conflicts with the Constitution, the Consitution will be set aside. Did you know that? Do you grasp what that means?
Knowing that government abuses, corrupts, and misuses, every single thing it comes in contact with, are you not farsighted enough to see a slow and steady move to set aside the Constitution in case after case that is presented in the future? Do you see a Bill of Rights in International Law? How does what's on the International Law books regarding gun ownership square with the Constitution? It doesn't. Big suprise.
The center piece of Bush's plans for his second term is dissolving the border, and implementation of the FTAA treaty. That's his goal, his agenda, and just because he tells you to your face that he is going to implement things that you are ignorant about, don't understand, and may feel he is talking over your head, does not make him an honest man, no matter what Bush supporters tell you.
A mugger is perfectly upfront with you about what he is about to do, does that make him an honest man? Bush is pushing for the Fast Track ability, where he can negotiate treaties and place them for an up or down vote before congress.
It does not matter if Bush honestly thinks this is a good for America, designed to offset the growing power and future wealth of the E.U., by creating the same in the Western Hemisphere, you have a responsibility as a citizen to future generations to protect them from both the corruption and/or naive'te of politicians.
I keep telling you guys that he is intent on passage of the FTAA treaty. Here is the text of his speech in Monterrey and the web address.
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/7693483.htm
Posted on Mon, Jan. 12, 2004 Text of Bush, Fox comments Associated Press
(snip")
BUSH: I believe that NAFTA has worked. It's helped America, it's helped Mexico, it's helped Canada. I think we need to move the process forward. The president and I discussed that earlier today with the North American initiative.
The president is absolutely right: The best way to eradicate poverty is to encourage trade between nations. Trade gives people hope, provides opportunity. Obviously that must be coupled with anti-corruption measures, like the president has done here in Mexico. It must be coupled with good education measures.
At this meeting, we're going to talk about ways to get capital into the hands of the entrepreneurial classes of respective countries. But without trade, there's going to be - it's going to be hard for some people to find opportunity.
And so I hope those who expressed some opposition about the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas, look at the facts. And the fact is that NAFTA has lifted lives and ended poverty in some parts of our - in our neighborhood.
May I just point out that the USofA is not poor, to end the poverty created by corrupt governments in our hemisphere is not our duty or responsibility. If NAFTA has worked so well, why are we in lawsuits filed against us by Mexico, regarding opening our borders to Mexican truckers, and Canada suing us over fuel additives?
The trade problems America faces are self inflicted. We lay our markets open to an artifically manipulated Free Trade suffering massive trade deficits, loss of manufacturing, and our industrial base, to float the boats of unfriendly nations while sinking the boats of the U.S. citizen and placing far out of his reach, the American Dream due to increasing depressed wages. Now they want international law to take presedence over the Constitution, I think that's too much to ask.
And to this end, the United States will not only push for the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas, we will continue trade agreements with countries like Chile. We just concluded one with Chile, but with the Central American countries, Andean countries.
We believe in trade. We believe it's in the interest of the neighborhood that we trade freely.
It depends on what "back of the line" means in Clintonese.
Republican politicians are really getting the hang of Clintonese double-speak, while it appears that many Republican voters are still way behind the curve.
I can't begin to imagine why that 'is', or 'is' not, but it 'is' perplexing isn't it?
LOL!
Just holding this philosophy is an impeachable offense. It's treason in my opinion. But the U.S. Congress is a mere shadow of what it was in 1790. Congress does NOTHING to protect the Constitution as they swore to do - they are a bunch of eunochs, and I have utter disdain for them.
Congress has the power to reign them in under the Exceptions Clause and impeachment proceedings, yet does not lift a finger. Today's Congress resembles the Roman Senate, circa 45 B.C.
Sad to say, I agree with you. Did you notice what Gen. Tommy Franks predicted? He said that another catastrophic terror attack (dirty nuke or worse) would result in suspension of the Constitution and military dictatorship. The day that happens is the day the U.S. Government becomes my sworn enemy.
Just remember what Benjamin Franklin said when the Constitutional Convention wound up. A woman wanted to know what kind of government that courageous, far-sighted group had created.Ben's cynicism was justified. Wise old bird.
"A Republic, if you can keep it," Dr. Franklin said.
John Adams was also very prescient when he said that the Constitution "was written for a moral and religious people and is inadequate for the government of any other." It has become inadequate, and our nation has chucked morality and virtue. Freedom has morphed into license.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.