When Bush Loses In November, He Will Have No One To Blame But Himself

Chuck Baldwin Ministries ^ | 01-23-04 | Baldwin, Chuck

[Theodore R.]

When Bush Loses In November, He Will Have No One To Blame But Himself

By Chuck Baldwin

Food For Thought From The Chuck Wagon

January 23, 2004 Let me be the first one to say it: President Bush is on track to lose in November, and it won't matter who his Democratic opponent is. His fabrications, deceptions, and prevarications are just too much to stomach. His duplicity rivals anything in the previous administration, a Republican name plate notwithstanding.

It's hard to think of anything this president has done right. His policies are every bit as socialist (or fascist) as the most liberal Democrat. We have lost more freedoms during the last three years than we had lost during the previous thirty! Even though Bush has enjoyed Republican majorities in both houses of Congress, neither conservatives nor constitutionalists can point to a single victory Bush has given them. Not one!

Babies are still being aborted at an escalating rate. The Bush administration has done as much (or more) to promote the homosexual agenda as any Democrat. Bush has proliferated the growth of federal spending and corresponding federal deficits to levels not seen in decades. Furthermore, he has created the embryo of a giant Orwellian police state while at the same time offering amnesty and legitimacy to foreign criminals who have invaded our country. If all of that isn't bad enough, Bush even threw his support behind the Clinton gun ban!

Due to Bush's dismal record, the Democratic nominee (whoever he is) will have to work at losing this election. The facade of a "wartime" president is wearing thin. Moreover, gas and oil prices have skyrocketed since oilmen Bush and Cheney rode into Washington, D.C. In addition, without a willingness to cut spending, Bush's tax cuts are a fraud! And now Bush wants to spend an additional billion dollars annually (where this money is coming from nobody knows) to send men to Mars. Get real!

Beyond that, Bush has repeatedly stated that his war against Iraq was fought for the purpose of "enforcing the demands of the United Nations." Now, isn't that lovely? Does he really expect us to re-elect him President of these United States after hearing that he ordered more than 500 brave, patriotic Americans to die in Iraq on behalf of the UN? Does he think we are a bunch of morons? He must.

G.W. Bush deserves to be a one-term president. And the truth is, the nation won't be worse off with a Democratic replacement. At least with a Democrat in the White House, Republicans in Congress might decide to actually oppose liberal policies.

With a liberal Democrat in the White House, a president might get 40% of his agenda through Congress. Bush, on the other hand, will get 80% of his policies through Congress, and Bush's policies are every bit as bad as any liberal Democrat's. So, you tell me who is actually "the lesser of two evils."

(If you would like to track the ongoing Bush record, go to http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/bushrecord.html.)

Therefore, when Bush loses in November, he will have no one to blame but himself.

© Chuck Baldwin

[sinkspur]

If you don't put some quote from a previous post, especially when your reply is made days after my post, I no longer remember what you're talking about.

Maybe it's just as well.

[lsmith1990]

"Babies are still being aborted at an escalating rate"

This is a patently false statement. There are now 33% fewer abortions today than in 1990.

[sinkspur]

I didn't make the statement. You've got me confused with somebody else.

[dcwusmc]

In reply to your post 264, in which you said,"Not one mention of the war on terror, the single greatest threat to the United States today."

I said, "The REAL greatest threat to the United States today is the ignoring of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It matters not WHAT terrorists do or don't do, if we shred (or allow to be shredded) the Constitution and BoR in the name of "FIGHTING" terrorism. That is something you just can't seem to grasp. Perhaps it's the authoritarian streak in you that shows just about every post you make. If the BoR, starting with the Second and Fourth Amendments, were enforced, terrorists would have very little to zero success in attacking ANYWHERE in this country. It is only when a once-free people are disarmed by government and laid naked and helpless that terrorists (of ALL stripes) can flourish. Bear in mind that had even ONE person on each flight on 9-11 been armed, we would not even be having this discussion. We would have had 19 dead or captured terrorist-wannabees and the WTC would still be standing tall and proud."

Any more questions?

[sinkspur]

Yes. I disagree with you about the greatest threat to the United States. It's terrorism, not some phony "threat to the Bill of Rights" that libertarians and fringe party candidates are always screaming about.

[dcwusmc]

So to you it's OK to shred the Constitution as long as it's for a good cause, like fighting terrorists?

How long could a terrorist last in the face of a totally armed citizenry? Five minutes? Ten? Or less than one? How many terrorists would even try if they knew they'd face at least a 95% LIKELIHOOD of failure? Remember, it's one thing to give your life to a successful mission; it's quite another to die for an abject failure and become, not a martyr, but a laughingstock.

Yet an attitude like yours only fuels the movement to COMPLETELY eradicate the Constitution in the name of a threat to the Republic. It does NOTHING to actually safeguard the country... nothing whatsoever! And bear in mind that the best chance of your personal safety and survival lies with YOU, not with an all-powerful FedGov. But if you want to enslave yourself for the sake of some fleeting sense of safety, go right ahead on. Just leave the rest of us OUT of your delusions. And DON'T look to anyone else to rescue your sorry a$$ when you find out just how big a mistake you made, giving up your liberties to FedGov in return for their chains.

[lsmith1990]

""How long could a terrorist last in the face of a totally armed citizenry? Five minutes? Ten? Or less than one?""

I cant believe this idiocy!!! Did the 2nd amendment stop 9/11. BTW a society that has a mandatory totally armed citizenry couldnt possibly be a free one. ....given that Israel is the closest thing to a totally armed citizenry, your question is really apallingly dumb.

The Patriot Act is not trashing the constitution, it is preserving it. Tommy Franks himself said the United State Constitution would not survive a nuclear terrorist attack. People of your ilk make that attack MORE likely and thus are the real enemies of the constitution

[BenR2]

Bush will beat ANY of these poseurs from the Democratic side.

/////////
First, you and I are in total agreement regarding the quality of the Demonrat candidates.

However, that does not justify Bush thumbing his nose at his political base.

I am not as sanguine as you about his ability to roll over the Demonrat opposition. Do you work with any Democrats? I do, and they HATE Bush.

But, if Bush does win by at least 5% of the popular vote (and also carries the electoral college), I will gladly buy you two 12-packs of your favorite beer. (Mark this post for future ref.)

P.S. As things now stand, however, Bush will have to win without my vote, which may well go uncast altogether (or to a third party candidate). I cannot, after serious reflection, in good conscience vote for any of the Democratic poseurs, either.

[BenR2]

Chuck has a right to write it and I have a right to criticize it.

//////
I'll drink to that!

[BenR2]

Anyhow, don't take this all that seriously, folks. I'm just ticked off at all the Bush haters on this board who appear to have forgotten that there is a war on and that the opposition doesn't have a clue about how to win it, and Bush does.

/////////
Okay. I accept and respect your apology (on the racism charge).

Your reply is eloquent, even if I am possibly going to vote for one of its target groups' candidate in November!

Cheers,

BenR2

[AlbionGirl]

Excellent comeback, and your vote will be missed.

I detest seeing conservative faction fighting conservative faction. I will say one thing, the more right leaning conservatives, of which I do not consider myself one, ate a lot of unpleasant dishes these last three years, and still supported the President, and for that I think a thanks is in order.

I will vote for President Bush, but I do understand your reasoning, and hope you realize that you and the millions of people who share your principles and views are part of the permanent Republican fold. We would have never made it this far without you.

[The_Eaglet]

For all in the Democrat Party that promote government-mandated quotas, this appears to be the case. Those who advocate government-enforced hiring quotas are advocating racial discrimination.

[ETERNAL WARMING]

BASIC economic principles would help you understand the EASE of the presidents proposal and how it is in fact an INGENIUS way to counter the "immigrant problem."

How so? It's been proven that the Reagan Amnesty cost a net drain of $25 billion dollars on the US economy. It's a stat! It's a fact. So how is it basically a good economic principle?

[ETERNAL WARMING]

OOPS..my bad. I misquoted. It turns out they were a net drain of $78.7 Billion:

Source: Center for Immigration Studies
URL Source: http://www.cis.org/articles/1997/back197.htm
Published: Dec 24, 2003
Author: David Simcox
Post Date: 2003-12-24 03:53:49 by out damned spot
3 Comments
Measuring the Fallout (Cost of the 1986 amnesty after ten years) Center for Immigration Studies May 1997 David Simcox



Summary

The federal government began legalizing almost three million illegal aliens 10 years ago, on May 5, 1987, wary of the fiscal liabilities of opening more public assistance programs to a population with high needs and low taxpaying power.

To ease the burden on the states, Washington closed some programs to the newly legalized for five years and reimbursed the states nearly $3.5 billion for some of their aid costs.

Was the concern of Congress, the White House, and many state and local leaders justified? A review of the evidence a decade later confirms that legalization indeed carried a high fiscal price tag — a total 10-year cost of $78.7 billion — with the indirect and downstream costs still accumulating. In the ten-year period ending in 1996, the amnestied population:

Accounted for an estimated $102.1 billion costs in current dollars in twenty federal, state, and local assistance programs and services.


Paid total taxes of $78 billion, for a ten-year fiscal deficit of $24 billion in the public assistance and services portion of the budget.

These are estimates of the direct costs only. There were, and will continue to be, significant indirect costs associated with the legalization of 2.7 million persons:

Job Displacement: About 1.66 million legalized workers, 70 percent of them unskilled, displaced an average of 187,000 citizen and settled immigrant workers from jobs each year. Costs of public assistance to those displaced totaled $9.9 billion for the decade.


Citizen Children: Women in the legalized population had an estimated 1.25 million U.S. citizen children between 1970 and 1996. Public education and three major public assistance programs to citizen children 18 and under amounted to $36.1 billion in the decade since amnesty.


School Costs of Undocumented Children: Remaining in the households of legalized population, or joining them subsequently were some 400,000 illegal immigrants by 1996, up from 177,000 in 1987. Costs of providing public schooling for them was $8.56 billion.


Five-Year Prospective Education Costs: Public education costs for U.S. citizen children of legalized aliens are projected to claim an additional $29.4 billion in the five years from 1997 to 2001, mostly from state and local budgets.


Total direct and associated indirect costs of the legalized population after taxes reached $78.7 billion in current dollars for the decade.

Truth according to the Census is that less than 6% of illegals pay any taxes at all yet 38% of them are on some form of public taxdollar assistance. What the stat is on educating their younguns and paying for their criminal incarceration is either not known or they're afraid to mention it.

[Texasforever]

David Simcox? LMAO

[dcwusmc]

I cant believe this idiocy!!! Did the 2nd amendment stop 9/11. BTW a society that has a mandatory totally armed citizenry couldnt possibly be a free one. ....given that Israel is the closest thing to a totally armed citizenry, your question is really apallingly dumb.

The Patriot Act is not trashing the constitution, it is preserving it. Tommy Franks himself said the United State Constitution would not survive a nuclear terrorist attack. People of your ilk make that attack MORE likely and thus are the real enemies of the constitution.

For such a newbie, you sure are opinionated. Or is insufferable more the word I want?

In any case, your assertion that proper enforcement of 2A would not have prevented terrorist attacks is laughable on the face of it, as had even ONE passenger on the 9-11 flights been armed, we would not even be having this discussion. Nor would we have the misnamed Department of Homeland Security (Silly me, I believed all the years I was in the Marine Corps that WE were providing Homeland security) or the malevolent boil on the seat of air travellers, the TSA. And your claim that the so-called "USA-PATRIOT" act is preserving the Constitution is so assinine as to be beyond belief. It is akin to the oft-stated claim made in Vietnam that "we had to destroy the village in order to save it." But I would bet that you won't even notice the irony of that. And Tommy Franks, being a political general, would be expected to say things such as you quoted. However, that does NOT make them so. It is my considered opinion that you are no more than a troll and that your "posts" would be more at home down the hall at tyrantsRus.com or some such place. Bear in mind the old saying about those who, in the name of some illusory government-provided "safety," would trade essential liberty, thus deserving neither... and may your chains rest lightly and may we soon forget that you were once called our countryman. I also call to your attention that I took an oath, several times over, to protect and defend the Constitution from ALL its enemies, foreign and domestic. So I took the time to read and understand that which I have sworn to defend. You, apparently, have not. Please read and UNDERSTAND what you are talking about before you put your foot in your mouth again. It gives your rants a modicum of credibility they currently are sorely lacking.

[lawgirl]

His duplicity rivals anything in the previous administration, a Republican name plate notwithstanding.

Including LYING UNDER OATH?? ^&%# off Baldwin.