BUSH BLUNDERS ARE HARD TO KEEP UP WITH

NewsWithViews.com ^ | May 1, 2003 | Pastor Chuck Baldwin

[Republican_Strategist]

BUSH BLUNDERS ARE HARD TO KEEP UP WITH

 

 

By Pastor Chuck Baldwin

May 12, 2003

NewsWithViews.com

The foibles and follies of this administration are too numerous to count. With the exception of Monica Lewinsky, they rival anything in the previous administration. Of course, most neocons refuse to notice. Therefore, this column will also be ignored.

However, for those who are interested in the truth, here are some of the latest examples of Bush's blunders:

*Bush threw his support behind a liberal Republican who supports increased taxes, abortion and additional gun control to be a Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate. That man is Illinois Governor Jim Edgar. Thankfully, Edgar decided to not seek the nomination, but that didn't stop Bush from doing his best to send another liberal to Washington, D.C. Next, watch for Bush to do the same thing in California.

*Bush continues his support for the Clinton-Gore gun ban enacted back in 1994. Despite objections from gun groups, including the National Rifle Association, the President is determined to re-institute the so-called "assault weapons" ban that is scheduled to sunset next year. So much for Bush being "pro-gun."

*As Commander-In-Chief, President Bush has the authority to establish guidelines and policies for our nation's military. When Bill Clinton became President, he implemented the infamous "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy allowing homosexuals to serve in the U.S. armed forces. Bush has continued that policy. Clinton also introduced women to front-line combat roles. And true to form, Bush continues this reprehensible Clinton policy. In fact, one would be extremely hard-pressed to find any Clinton policy that Bush has reversed! I can't think of a single one.

*NAFTA and GATT came into existence early in the Clinton administration. Bush continues those polices and even wants to expand them. He has proposed expanding this agreement throughout the Americas and is now calling for a Mideast Free Trade agreement. Say good-bye to more American jobs; say hello to more foreign goods and to more foreign workers.

*Bush is determined to oversee the creation of a Palestinian state. After sending American soldiers to fight and die in an undeclared war against Iraq, Bush wants to create another such country by giving the P.L.O. radicals their own nation. Clinton wanted to do the same thing, of course, but was shouted down by conservatives. Today, those same conservatives sit mute and dumb as Bush sets about to finish what Clinton started.

*Speaking of finishing what Clinton started, Bush successfully created the Department of Homeland Security and the totalitarian-laced USA Patriot Act. There is an even more egregious version currently worming its way into law. All this was the brainchild of Bill Clinton, of course. However, he could not accomplish his pernicious plans because conservatives and Republicans would not support them. Now they do.

*Bush is likely to invoke Executive Privilege in order to continue the cover-up about what he and other top government leaders knew prior to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Some thirty days prior to the attacks, Bush reportedly received a CIA Intelligence Report which warned, "The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities or interests. Attack preparations have been made. Attack will occur with little or no warning." More details are leaking out almost daily.

A Democratic Presidential contender, Senator Bob Graham of Florida, says Bush knows much more than he is telling and is demanding that the administration come clean about what really took place. Before that happens, however, Bush will claim Executive Privilege and the truth will be covered up once again.

[Southack]

"Oh, you think Bush spending money on the military makes him a conservative even though you avoid why I say Bush is not conservative. Hell, by your logic Glore would be conservative seeing how he said he'd spend more than Bush on the military."

Giving pay raises to our military is a good start, but unlike Bush, Gore was not only for the Kyoto Treaty on Global Warming, but also helped author it. Bush killed it, and yes, that makes him a Conservative.

Likewise, killing the socialist-dominated International Criminal Court (or at least, all U.S. involvement with it), makes Bush a Conservative.

Furthermore, killing the U.S. - CCCP ABM Treaty makes Bush a Conservative.

Notifying the Supreme Court that the U.S. government now views the 2nd Amendment as protecting INDIVIDUAL, rather than "collective" (see Soviet collectivism post above) rights, likewise makes Bush more Conservative than even Ronald Reagan (a great President but even he wouldn't go so far as Bush has gone for the 2nd Amendment).

Killing the estate tax / death tax also makes Bush a Conservative.

Killing abortion funds for foreign "family planning" makes Bush a Conservative, too.

[Republican_Strategist]

Ashcroft added the Second Amendment did not prohibit Congress from enacting laws restricting firearms ownership for "compelling state interests."

[Southack]

"Ashcroft added the Second Amendment did not prohibit Congress from enacting laws restricting firearms ownership for "compelling state interests."

It's a compelling state interest to ban firearms from prisoners serving time inside the pen.

Gee, how unConservative of Ashcroft... < /MOCKING! >

[tbpiper]

Bush supporting Clinton’s ban on “assault weapons” and you attack the messenger.

Look, this is minor thing. If the time comes that you need an assult weapon, you can get one with some stealth and a single shot 22. I think the ban is stupid, too, but to criticize the best president we've had in 12 years is more so.

So who out of the current crop of politicians would you approve of for president? Who is conservative enough to fit your criterion? Pining for Ross Perot Or maybe somebody with both islationist and anti-Semitic qualities (Pat Wazzhizname)?

Look how far we've come with this president. Better yet, look how far the Lib/Dems have receded. You need to be patient and take a longer view of things.

[Republican_Strategist]

Bush supports the Clinton Era Ban. That was my point.

Of course it is unconstitutional. It is an infringement on the right to bear arms. Sadly you think banning semiauto guns for a "mean" appearance is constitutional. God save us.

You say Prescription Drug Coverage is constitutional. Try Article 1, Section 8. The Military is an area - redistribution/socialist schemes for giving people free goodies is not. Your excuse quite frankly stinks, and scares me.

Bush is on board with Gore, Kennedy. He is moving us closer to Hillarycare - only they do it piece by piece rather than one big leap.

How is he denying the democrats the issue - he's basically on board with them - he just has his on version of it.

[Judith Anne]

Drek.

[The Raven]

What's amazing to me is [last time I looked] we have a Republican Senate, House, Supreme Court, and public. And the Dems are still having an effect on nominations and tax cuts. What gives?

[ArneFufkin]

If someone wants to present a vital and timely political commentary, I really wish they'd just lay it out in honesty and good faith, and field any reactive discourse.

This too clever by half presentation of commentary featured on some bogus website to lend anonymity and space to the author is annoying and boorish.

If Chuck Baldwin wants his unique insight shared with the forum, why doesn't he address the forum directly and bathe in the inevitable feedback generated by his pernicious diarrhea episode?

This guy is bad news.

This isn't a news source, it's a bunko operation I tell ya!

[Southack]

"Of course it is unconstitutional. It is an infringement on the right to bear arms. Sadly you think banning semiauto guns for a "mean" appearance is constitutional. God save us."

God save us from little kiddies who've never READ THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN bill.

Here's a little NEWSFLASH: you can't post one unConstitutional sentence from the entire Assault Weapons Ban bill.

For two reasons: for one, because you haven't read it. For another, because it was reviewed by the courts and it has already passed Constitutional muster.

Heck, it doesn't even ban semi-automatic weapons. NEWSFLASH: if you aren't insane, an infant, or a felon, you can go buy a semi-automatic firearm at the gunshow or gun store of your choice (though I doubt that you've ever darkened the doors of either, save perhaps a Wal-Mart where you were picking up your laundry supplies).

So that's my challenge to you, young one, come back to this thread when you can post ONE UNCONSTITUIONAL SENTENCE from the actual text of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban bill.

And here's my bet: you'll post everything BUT such a sentence.

[Republican_Strategist]

I have never argued that opposing Kyoto was a conservative position, but that alone hardly makes for calling someone a conservative. He nominated Whitman of all people who is basically saying Global Warming is a fact while he tripled the EPA budget.

Opposing the ICC would be conservative, but again it is another issue that does not mean the individual is conservative through and through.

Killing the ABM Treaty was a good move. Never said otherwise.

Ashcroft added the Second Amendment did not prohibit Congress from enacting laws restricting firearms ownership for "compelling state interests."

He supports a Clinton gun ban.

There are thousands of taxes to be killed - income tax would be a good one - but Bush hasn't seriously cut down on taxation.

The above article shows Bush agreed to $15 billion for overseas abortions.

[Republican_Strategist]

What are "compelling state interests"? For members of Congress and other Washington policy-makers, "compelling state interests" translates to "whatever reason the government finds."

Therefore, "compelling state interests" is a loophole that renders the Second Amendment moot – at least in the minds of most Congress critters.

The Second Amendment is pretty clear to those of us who understand English and history: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

[Republican_Strategist]

Bush agreeing to a ban on semiauto weapons that Clinton/Gore started is very hostile towards the second amendment and towards conservatism.

[Southack]

"The Second Amendment is pretty clear to those of us who understand English and history: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Taken at your word, you support arming every prisoner inside of every jail in America.

[Southack]

"Bush agreeing to a ban on semiauto weapons that Clinton/Gore started is very hostile towards the second amendment and towards conservatism."

No, what is hostile to Conservativism are the Leftists who log on as disruptors by pretending to be more Conservative than Reagan, as well as by the far-right radicals who hate 99% of America.

Bush keeps his word. He said that he'd support all existing gun laws when he campaigned for office in 2000. Had he been any more to the Right, he would not have won the election (the 577 vote margin in Florida was simply too close). America would NOT have elected anyone more Conservative than Bush in 2000, and THAT would have been hostile to Conservatism.

Not that a so-called "Republican Strategist" would understand that fact, however...

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

Republican_Strategist?

So whats the strategy in this? shooting yourself in the foot only makes you limp your shoes dont fit right and you have a heck of a time starting your motorcycle.

[Republican_Strategist]

Taken at my word? Wrong! Taken what the U.S. Constitution says. The people have the right to bear arms. It shall shall not be infringed. It is about arming people inside a prison. You have to come up with those ridiculous ploys because I suppose you can't stomach liberty on that magnitude.

That is a constitutional right whther you like it or not.

[onyx]

what is hostile to Conservativism are the Leftists who log on as disruptors by pretending to be more Conservative than Reagan, as well as by the far-right radicals who hate 99% of America.

Southack has exposed you and buried you, and yet you keep on sputtering.

[Southack]

"Taken at my word? Wrong! Taken what the U.S. Constitution says. The people have the right to bear arms. It shall shall not be infringed. It is about arming people inside a prison."

That was my point: you are claiming that the 2nd Amendment can't be infringed, even for the Americans who are inside prisons.

[Southack]

So that's my challenge to you, young one, come back to this thread when you can post ONE UNCONSTITUIONAL SENTENCE from the actual text of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban bill.

And here's my bet: you'll post everything BUT such a sentence.


169 posted on 05/14/2003 4:13 AM CDT by Southack

[piasa]

Could the founding fathers pass your definition of "conservative," were they plopped into today's world as is- along with their slaves?

The federal government and the state governments infringed on the inalienable right of liberty - at least for persons of color and lily white indentured servants- for how many decades after the founding fathers signed the constitution, until a war put an end to much of the slavery they had not had the proverbial nads to deal with?

Does that mean the founding fathers were sellouts?

No- it means that those who loved human liberty thought the first order of business was to overlook that little nasty aspect of things called "slavery" in the interests of unity in order to rid themselves of the Brits.

If they had chosen to pressure the governors to abolish slavery first would they have succeeded or would they have been ignored? We don't know, but they probably wouldn't have succeeded.

Would they have been able to fight the Brits at all if they took an absolute stand against slavery and failed to get some colonies to go along with the rebellion?

Just curious.