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.

[Republican_Strategist]

Disruptors are people I have had to deal with, but this is about you trying to make outlandish insinuations. Your whole diatribe about far-right radicals is no different than Chuck Schumer railing against judicial nominations. Anything even remotely right of your leftist attitudes - is radical.

Bush keeping his word to uphold Clinton's ban along with other unconstitutional bars on our second amendment rights is enough to vote for someone else.

I love how you excuse it. It is about winning elections rather than standing up for what is right. Bush wasn’t a conservative. He is being hostile towards conservatism with these gun bans enacted by Clinton, government takeover of industries, these massive farm subsidies & collectivism, and so on.

I tolerated it. I compromised my values, but I have repented. No more. I want moral clarity and I stand on principle. Unwavering.

When I was really dedicated to being republican_strategist - I remember people questioning Bush’s conservative credentials and I remember having the attitudes expressed by a lot of people on here. I understand.

[Republican_Strategist]

First of all, your challenge was childish and stupid quite frankly. The whole ban on semiautomatic weapons for having a mean appearances is an infringement on the right to bear arms.

Let me post it:

18 USC Chapter 44 as amended by Public Law 103-322 (enacted 09-13-94)
1. Any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as -
(1) Norinco, Mitchell and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs
(all models);
(2) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil
(3) Beretta Ar70 (SC70)
(4) Colt AR-15; (v) Fabrique Nationale FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC
(5) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
(6) Steyr AUG
(7) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC DC-9, and TEC-22 and
(8) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper
and Striker 12.
2. A semiautomatic rifle that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of
-
(1) a folding or telescopic stock;
(2) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the
weapon;
(3) a bayonet mount;
(4) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a
flash suppressor; and
(5) a grenade launcher;

3. A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2
of -
(1) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the
pistol grip;
(2) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender,
flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer.
(3) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles,
the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with
the nontrigger hand without being burned.
(4) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol
is unloaded.
(5) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm
4. A semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of -
(1) a folding or telescopic stock;
(2) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of
the weapon;
(3) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and
(4) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.

Any gun manufactured or built after September 14, 1994 (post-ban) can only have up to 2 of these dangers on it. If your gun has more than that, and they catch you, the penalty is a $10,000 fine and up to 10 years in prison. If you have a gun made before September 14, 1994 (pre-ban), you are able to have as many of the dangers on it as you would like legally. The caveat is that the gun has to have been in an "assault weapon" configuration on or before the ban took place.

You bet wrong.

[Republican_Strategist]

Wrong. Americans in prison are Americans who have violated the law. They are subject to incarceration and become stewards of the state for which they cannot bear arms, move about freely, or do as they please. Any American outside of incarceration has the right to bear arms. That argument was ridiculous and patently absurd.

[Princeliberty]

I notice all the Republicans getting made
at the Pastor cannot deny the truth of
anything he is saying.
In fact there are many more things
that the Pastor could have brought
up The massive spending increases
like the record farm bill Bush
supporting, Bush's drives to
increase Federal Control of Education
as he advances the Clinton/NEA
agenda on Education, his pro-Red China policy
and ...

[Princeliberty]

Not at all, we are talking about Bush
almost always in pratice doing
the wrong thing, despite what he
says, we are the ones get the less than 10%
of what we want not the left.

[poet]

""Advice this "pastor" should learn, as well as yourself if you believe this crap."

Once again insults. Can you refute any of this "crap"

Can you refute that in a little over 2 1/2 years, he has spent close to a TRILLION of NEW spending?

Can you refute that he wants to give 3,000,000 illegals citizenship?

Can you refute that he has left many of clinton's appointees in positions of power in the fbi and other agencies?

Can you refute that he presented and signed the mis-named "patriot act" into law?

Can you refute that he gave Billions of our tax dollars to foreign countries to form the coalition in his "police action?

Can you refute that he embraced the dem's "education" plan?

Can you refute that he added 60,000+ new people to the public's payroll (airport)?

Can you refute that he signed the CFR with the comment that he believed it is un-Constitutional? Where was his sworn oath to uphold the Constitution. Where were the courage of his convictions?

You people who defend the indefensible are no better than the clinton apologists! Duplicity and lies are acceptable as long as your people engage in them, but, un-acceptable if the other guy's people engage in them.

Crap indeed. Refute all of them if you can and dispense with the insults when your guy's policies are brought to the light of day.

Oh yes, he has thrown us a few "crumbs" to keep those of you who follow him blindly in line and who don't do an overview of his entire policy.

Who is better? I don't know at this point in time because until a politician is elected all we know about him/her is what they say and not until they are in power can we really know what they are all about. I do know who is not better and that is liberal democrats and "moderate" republicrats.
President Bush is NOT a Constitutional Conservative! He has proven that, so far, in three instances, to wit; CFR, "patriot act" & "homeland security". Does anyone else find the word "homeland" when referring to America offensive? What was wrong with National Security? Perhaps it didn't fit the New World Order that is being fostered upon us.

FReegards

[poet]

"is acting like a liberal and I am not going to sit by an support it."

That makes twenty of us (the other 18 are in my sphere of influence. Exponentially that could eventually, to put it mildly, involve a lot of people or maybe it won't involve any more than us.

FReegards

[Judith Anne]

I STILL want this thread nuked. It's stupid, and getting stupider. No matter how careful you and others are to point out the obvious to these Bush-haters, they are out to draw blood and won't stop.

Nothing is good enough for them, nothing is pure enough for them, President Bush isn't Christ returned to destroy evil once for all, and they're vicious in their disappointment, and determined to destroy him because of that. He can do no right, he has won nothing, he should be vilified and disinherited from the Republican party because he hasn't fulfilled THEIR vision.

This article was drek from the beginning, continues to be drek, and as long as it continues, will be drek. I'm sick of it. Political kindergartners actually think they have something important to say.

JimRob left it up, but it's the political equivalent of kudzu.

[JonH]

That's it! I will vote for a RAT because not every decision Bush makes fits my personal view of politics.

NOT!

[drlevy88]

What say a new FR forum be created, called "Bush Bashing." The Bush bashers can bash Bush to their heart's content in that forum, and leave the rest of us in peace.

[DB]

No he thinks that means the people should have nuclear weapons. After all, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed...

We may disagree where to draw the line but clearly there is a line.

[Jorge]

Here we go again. ( yaaawwwwn!)

[DB]

No these threads are good. There are thousands that read these threads and never post. This thread lays out both positions clearly. Have faith that reasonable people will see it for what it is.

[rdb3]

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.

Since you went to the "neocon" word in your first paragraph, you're absolutely right. This column will be ignored.

[metesky]

Vote for Hillary instead. She's the only one that who save the Republic now.

I don't care what the others are saying, you do have a sense of humor.

[drlevy88]

Bush and the GOP have much room to improve. Nobody disputes that. But "Republican strategist"? Give us a break. The only strategy mapped out by this dood appears to be how to destroy Bush and the GOP and bring Rats back into ascendancy.

[DB]

Republican strategist has to have absolute purity...

He doesn't seem to realize there is not such thing on this earth.

[AbsoluteJustice]

Hate to be the bringer of bad news but just because the president stands by an issue here and an issue there that he believes in that may lean away from you does not make such president a liberal or supporting the liberal cause. I do not agree with everything Bush does but I will tell you this overall ON ALL ISSUES encompassing he has done a DAMNED fine job.

Think about it there has been NO OTHER presidency more difficult aside from Lincoln then what he is going through now. If you would like me to elaborate more on this I most certainly will but NOONE can point to a more difficult presidecy then the one that is currently going on.

[Risa]

>>Bush still waited months trying to get the U.N. to go along with it. Just because his long, tiresome plea for the U.N. to give us permission failed - does not mean he is some genius.<<

O.K. I respect your opinion. I initially thought it a mistake to court U.N. approval; but, as events unfolded, I realized that HE HAD to pursue this course. The world and the anti-war people would have otherwise gone wild. Also, the U.N. came out looking very bad in the end, and had Bush ignored them initially, they would have escaped the appearance of uselessness, wouldn't they have?

As far as France, not everyone in the U.S. knew the extent of their betrayal during the past 20 years. Yet, Bush forced France to lay their cards on the table in front of the world, something that would not have happened if Bush had not pursued the U.N. avenue first.

I know many very liberal people who supported the war and our President, just because he is the president. As events unfolded, however, they recognized Bush's brilliance, and and they grew to respect him immensely. In fact, many will vote for him next election--at least they have said so. To me this reflects Bush's success.

Hey--why does your web site link crash my computer?

regards,
risa

[Ben Ficklin]

It must be discouraging to you and Chuckie that Bush could care less what your views are. No political candidate will work for .03% of the vote.