Mr.Bush: What Would Jefferson Do?

OnlineArchive.org ^ | January 29 ,2004 | Sam Adams

[LS]

Jefferson launched a full scale war against Muslim terrorist countries---only one of which had actually declared war againt the U.S.---without a declaration of war. In that, he and Bush are quite alike: both understood that national security is the central issue of any government.

By the way, I could take this list and compare many of the things GEORGE WASHINGTON did with the Constitution (there is no "cabinet" in there, for example) and find them questionable. But Jefferson doesn't hold a candle to GW in my book. Washington, that is.

[B4Ranch]

Mr. Bush has proposed amensty for illegal aliens while failing to pressure congress into passing the Criminal Alien Removal Act Of 2003 [9] (Clear Act) and failing to enforce existing federal immigration laws - violating Article IV, Section 4, U.S. Constitution: "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government and shall protect each of them against invasion and in application of the legislature or of the executive against domestic violence." [15]

"I... place economy among the first and most important of republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared."

Jefferson speaks from the dead to the brain dead: [19] I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere. Most codes extend their definitions of treason to acts not really against one's country. They do not distinguish between acts against the government, and acts against the oppressions of the government. The latter are virtues, yet have furnished more victims to the executioner than the former, because real treasons are rare; oppressions frequent. The unsuccessful strugglers against tyranny have been the chief martyrs of treason laws in all countries."

Mr. Jefferson, please wake the dead: "Theconstitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." [23]

The difference between Mr.Bush and his Democratic opponent is not a difference in kind, but one of degree. Mr.Bush looks to the right for support, speaks to the center and governs increasingly to the left.

can't those who have voted Republican just to defeat a democrat, grab hold of an Independent before being swept down the river of no return.

All who have been abandoned by the GOP must find an Independent Party. Michael Anthony Peroutka [28]is seeking the Presidential nomination of the Constitution Party. His themes are "God-Family-Republic," and, unlike Mr. Bush, he wants to restore our original representative Constitutional republic.

Wouldn't a GOP Congress check a Democrat President, or would they send him checks to sign on the taxpayers account; thereby proving to the most deluded of Republican cheerleaders @ FreeRepublic.com - home to the enablers of profligate addicts pillaging at the public trough - that the only hope of achieving their stated goals is to embrace a Party which champions those objectives as a priority instead of a campaign platitude to be discarded after the election. If your vote for an Independent President results in Mr. Bush's defeat this November, you will have everything to gain and nothing to lose.

It is time to declare INDEPENDENCE [33] from the RNC/DNC socialist, transnational progressive complex. According to Jefferson, "It is the steady abuse of power in other governments which renders that of opposition always the popular party." [34]

As long as Mr. Bush refuses to lift a finger, or raise his voice against the unconstitutional abortion holocaust [36] allowed by the federal judiciary; his commitment to family and to humanity itself is nonexistent.

[spodefly]

Bookmark / BTTT

[NormsRevenge]

Bump

[George W. Bush]

A few observation on your main points:

1. Mr. Bush stated the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was probably unconstitutional (Justices Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas & Rehnquist agree)[5] and signed it anyway; violating the oath of office.
   
   Well, he is a president, not a jurist. He expressed an opinion. We'll all argue he should veto. But his basic oath is to faithfully execute the office and uphold the Constitution. He has fulfilled his basic constitutional duties as commander in chief and chief diplomat and executive of the domestic civil service.
   
   Still, he should have vetoed. CFR muzzles many of the most effective conservative grassroots organizations. But there are ways around it. His main reason to sign it was, of course, that the Dims are so dumb they put themselves at a considerable fundraising and propaganda advantage. They've finally figured this out but too late. They drank their own Koolaid for election '04 at least.
   
   
2. Mr. Bush has proposed amensty for illegal aliens while failing to pressure congress into passing the Criminal Alien Removal Act Of 2003[9] (Clear Act) and failing to enforce existing federal immigration laws - violating Article IV, Section 4, U.S. Constitution: "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government and shall protect each of them against invasion and in application of the legislature or of the executive against domestic violence."
   
   Your strongest point, I think. The most fundamental duty is to protect the citizens and to do it by controlling borders. Bush follows in the dereliction of duty by predecessors, including Reagan. He can't fix it all at once but his proposed solution is no fix at all.
   
   His proposal appears DOA in Congress. But he shouldn't bring it up, signalling as he has that he intends to violate his fundamental duty.
   
   And a War On Terror that mostly safeguards only airliners is pretty dumb. You could assemble hundreds of terrorists to stream over the southern border for a major terrorist act. Our current security measures do very little to address the threat posed by the open southern and northern borders.
   
   
3. Mr. Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001; described by Rep. Mike Pence (R.) 2nd District of Indiana in the U.S. House as "The largest expansion of the Department of Education since President Carter created it."
   
   Many of us fought this into the ground. It is part of his father's original Goals 2000 program, adopted and extended by Clinton, re-embraced by Bush 43. It is unconstitutional by any standard. When libs destroy the constitution by inserting their fantasies like Roe, we all see it clearly. But when they make a grab for education, on grounds just as weak, it seems many people like to give them a free ride.
   
   Bush campaigned on this so people had adequate warning. I am part of the group of conservatives who had this one beaten into the ground, dead and buried, until Bush resurrected it for no good reason. Naturally, we are pursuing other methods of making this another huge failure. We do not give up so easily as Mr. Rove thinks. This ain't over yet.
   
   
4. Mr. Bush signed the Medicare prescription drug bill that represents the single largest expansion of the federal welfare state since the Great Society programs of the 1960s.
   
   Okay, I'll give you this one on the Pill Bill. No excusing it especially with so much other wild spending.
   
   However, Bush doesn't hold the federal checkbook, Congress does. Bush can request any spending he wants but if Congress writes hot checks, it's their fault. If their spending is unconstitutional, the courts are at fault for failing to protect the rule of law under the Constitution.
5. Mr. Bush signed H.R. 2417 / Public Law 108-177, Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004.[17 ]
   
   I have to give him a pass on this one. Not sure what your specific complaint is.
   
   
6. "Mr. Bush stated his support for the Assault Weapons ban during the 2000 campaign. A spokesman for the administration stated flatly that the President "'supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law.'" [22]
   
   Again, disturbing. Real ignorance of the constitution. However, we had DeLay and others in Congress to stop it. I've often wondered if Bush offered this as an election ploy to get elected (neutering the anti-gunners in campaign 2000) and has offered to sign it again only to torment the Dims who know full well that gungrabbing cost them the '94 congress and hastened the realignment of the South to the GOP.
   
   Still, no excuse for such a flagrant attempt at gungrabbing. Even if Bush/Rove was only being clever and political about it, such talk and scheming would be dangerous. It shows, along with Patriot Act, a dismissiveness toward the Constitution. Of course, he's hardly the first adminstration that operates that way.
   
   

[Happy2BMe]

"A dead Jefferson would at least veto what a live Bush couldn't."

Not only that, but Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Lincoln, Reagan and any president worth their salt would not for one second stand by and offer up our borders, sovereignty, jobs, and heritage for the sake of political convenience.

Need I name names?

[B4Ranch]

Need I name names?

Please do, of with both parties to show the differences between them!

[George W. Bush]

Well, Reagan had his own amnesty. At least that time, Reagan could claim it hadn't been tried. I thought it was a cynical exercise as there was no attempt made to control the borders afterward. Something of a black mark on the Reagan legacy for many of us.

Bush didn't exactly invent the don't-call-it-amnesty thing.

[Happy2BMe]

"I thought it was a cynical exercise as there was no attempt made to control the borders afterward."

That was twenty years and twenty illegal migrants ago.

"No attempt to control the border" can be equally shared by each succeeding President since Reagan.

Including George Bush.

[Happy2BMe]

Correction: That was twenty years and twenty MILLION illegal migrants ago.

[B4Ranch]

"It shows, along with Patriot Act, a dismissiveness toward the Constitution. Of course, he's hardly the first adminstration that operates that way."

Because he's not the first, does this mean we should continue to allow the destruction of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights until the United Nations steps in for the final coup de grais?

I will vote 3rd Party because I am scared for America. I don't want another shooting civil war but I will not shrink from the possibility because it is better than losing everything. If we can fight and die in other countries for their freedoms, we MUST be willing to do the same for ourselves!

[George W. Bush]

Okay. Then we are in some agreement, it seems.

But in this amnesty matter, Bush unfortunately appears to be a Reagan Republican. You have to wonder if Mr. Reagan would have done his amnesty and still left the borders so open if he knew what we know now about the effects but that's just speculative. We'll never really know.

[Happy2BMe]

"But in this amnesty matter, Bush unfortunately appears to be a Reagan Republican."

That, sir just doesn't sound right.

Please define the "type" of Republican partisanship that George Bush is demonstrating in "this amnesty matter".

Ears wide open.

[George W. Bush]

Because he's not the first, does this mean we should continue to allow the destruction of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights until the United Nations steps in for the final coup de grace?

Not at all. But we must look at the overall picture as voters and activists. On a flat litmus test of constitutionalism, we would have to conclude that we should flee to a remote island. Since we're not going to do that, we need to find ways to uphold rule of law and the Constitution.

One of the most effective things you can do is to sign up for email action alerts with the Liberty Committee. We are a constitutionalist group. We start every fight in Congress with over 20 congressmen including Paul, Tancredo, Hostettler and more. We don't beg for money and we don't sell your name. It's about the cheapest and most effective way to advocate for constitutionalism and the conservative agenda.

I will vote 3rd Party because I am scared for America.

I understand your position and I am the last person to try to tell you that your vote doesn't belong to you or that a vote for candidate C is actually a vote for candidate B. This is obvious nonsense since a vote can legally only belong to the candidate for which it was cast.

But we have to understand that our votes must mean something. The few times we've seen successful third parties form, it is on the corpse of a predecessor. There are no indications that either major party will fall apart in the next two elections. So you have to be committed to a third party and determined to stay with it for many years, the rest of your life. And for it to succeed, one party or the other must implode.

Those remarks are directed toward third parties in national politics where they function as spoilers mostly. However, the best thing you can do to promote a new party is to elect local candidates and produce some results. And then when you try for state offices and even federal office, you have candidates with some experience in government. The voters don't generally trust amateurs with high office.

[George W. Bush]

Please define the "type" of Republican partisanship that George Bush is demonstrating in "this amnesty matter".

I'm just saying that Bush isn't the first president to try the amnesty thing. And Reagan is the only one who did it before.

Just thought that mentioning Reagan's amnesty might liven the discussion a little.

[Happy2BMe]

"Just thought that mentioning Reagan's amnesty might liven the discussion a little."

Closing the border with Mexico would'nt hurt any either.

[Federalist 78]

One of the most effective things you can do is to sign up for email action alerts with the Liberty Committee. We are a constitutionalist group. We start every fight in Congress with over 20 congressmen including Paul, Tancredo, Hostettler and more. We don't beg for money and we don't sell your name. It's about the cheapest and most effective way to advocate for constitutionalism and the conservative agenda.

Thanks for posting that link and those three who are attempting to restore Constitutional sanity. It's a shame the RNC refues to follow Paul, Tancredo, Hostettler .

[B4Ranch]

The U.S. Constitution Party is getting my vote because I am praying that if they get enough votes they will be invited to the Primary Debates. Hopefully, they will have a decent debater there which will inform the rest of America, who has never even heard of them, that there is another option.

Bush, Kerry, Dean or whomever will surely continue down the road we are going.....destruction by suicide. Just maybe in four years the people will have had enough and be willing to try the U.S. Constitution Party as a last resort.

It would be nice if Ron Paul and/or Keyes would step up in 2008 as candidate for the U.S. Constitution Party but we'll see what happens. I'm sure whoever steps up with adequate backing will be a serious contender.

I can't just sit back and continue voting republican party. 35 years of trying to keep the Democrats out of the White House hasn't done a damn thing for America!

Trying to change a Congressman who has been reelected 5 times isn't going to work either, he's too comfortable and too well paid not to follow party lines. Thinking for himself is beyond what he is capable of, as we have seen for too long.

[George W. Bush]

By all means, vote.

But do the things you can do now.

If you can't get your congress-RINO or Dim to listen, then go after Tom DeLay and other fiscal conservatives. Help support the activist efforts of Liberty Caucus, now meeting in secret to plan their strategy.

Hoping for the worst to elevate your savior-party just isn't practical. It may never happen. Do the things you can do now.

BTW, if you're really determined, there is a line of strategy you can even use to persuade a Dim congressman to help you achieve your goals. Not all Dims, but some of them may respond to such tactics, seeing in them a partisan advantage to themselves. Naturally, they're still evil people but you can make use of them if you're cursed with living in their district. No reason not to try. I certainly won't let my Dim senator (one of the more conservative ones) off the hook just because he's a Dim.