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.

[TLBSHOW]

I new you could not do it. Show me where in this story that Chuck is a lair about the fact Bush keeps advancing the Clinton/liberal agenda..

[deport]

I guess ol' Chuckie and his cohorts prefer one of the following. I don't think any of the 3rd party wannabees will have a chance so it will be up to this group to knock off the President. Which one you reckon the Chuckie crowd will fall behind....

---

---

.

[kstewskis]

someone forget their bran muffin this morning...

[onyx]

FYI, tlbshow == We already posted the link to Baldwin's rant "Is Bush the Anti-Christ" last night in post # 85.

Furthermore, Southack KO'd him several times, but like all disruptors, he couldn't stay down, --- loving the attention.

[Liberty Valance]

I will NOT vote for the dark side.

Go to the light!

W '04!

Liberty

[onyx]

Chuck Baldwin belongs to the Constitution Party.

[babaloo999]

How can you dare call this rubbish?

Too bad Bush can't wave the magic wand and make abortion, lobbyists and democrats go away. Lord knows he's full of crap just like any other politician. Lord knows we're much better off with him in the White House than the alternative.
I'm sure you've posted this at Liberty Post/Forum. Do you have the same screen name on those forums?

[TLBSHOW]

Having to deal with this story post the links to where Chuck is a lair and point by point that Bush is not advancing Clintons agenda. Do that and I will say Chuck is a lair and I am wrong.


here they are in case you missed them

*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.

[onyx]

The word is "liar" (not lair) and I missed nothing.

Sorry to disappoint, but I am not devoting one more minute to Chuck Baldwin. Read Southack's posts! ALL of them.

[deport]

Chuck Baldwin belongs to the Constitution Party.

---

Well they can have him...... Isn't that the party that got less than 100,000 votes in 2000 for President? Maybe he can get them up to 100,000 vote mark with his couple of follows....

[TLBSHOW]

I new you couldn't do it.

[onyx]

Isn't that the party that got less than 100,000 votes in 2000 for President?

Yes.

[Southack]

"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..."

What part of "shall not be infringed" in the 2nd Amendment gives anyone the right to ban guns from criminals in prison? If you are going to claim that the 2nd Amendment can't be modified for any "compelling state interest", then you are going to have to explain what sentence in our Constitution permits banning Americans in prison from possessing firearms.

That's your argument, after all.

[Mo1]

The article was written by a complainer and whiner. No matter *what* President Bush does, he'd find some fault in it. Same with you it would appear.

Yep ..

[ModernDayCato]

Still waiting (and not holding my breath)

[hchutch]

Facts and reality do not matter to the purists.

They want what they want when they want it, and via a method that satisfies their need for ideological purity.

Otherwise, it is all tainted and the politican who does that is considered sellout.

[poet]

With respect, I think you missed the point of my reply.

I am fed up with people who defend the indefensible. Instead of hurling insults when someone exposes another of Bush's liberal cave-in, his apologists chalk it up to brilliant politics just as clinton's apologists. You may admire a brilliant politician and if you do then you are saying that the duplicity of your guy is ok, but, the other guy is a lowlife for doing the same thing.

Politicians are about "personal" power and they are not really interested in our well being. Just look at how they raise their salaries, how they spend our money, how they bail-out businesses which should be allowed to fail from their own incompetance.

The tax cuts? A laugh, because they will add fees or increase taxes on gas, electricity, sales and a myriad of other essential items.

An objective overview of Bush's policies will show that the liberal's and democrat's eat at his table while we receive crumbs. I know I can't expect 100% as respects policy, however, I do expect 100% compliance with their sworn oath to uphold the Constitution. I do not accept the lie that it is done for my "security. That is BS. It's a abject grab for more power over our lives.

JFTR, I am registered as a "declined to state" on the sunny left coast, therefore I hold no party affiliation.

I am suggesting you connect the dots and not blindly follow anyone just because he/she is the best of a bad lot, you know, the lesser of two evils (that's not to call anyone evil).

FReegards

P.S Don't assume I voted for Pat or Ross or anyone else. For sure, I did not vote for Bush or Gore.



















;

[Southack]

"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."

What you posted isn't unConstitutional.

You can still own the weapon of your choice (see your own quote above). You might have to buy one made before 1994, but you can still own it.

The courts have already ruled on this law. It passes legal muster. For political neophytes such as yourself to outlandishly claim that it is unConstitutional simply reeks of not knowing what our Constitution does and does not prohibit.

[onyx]

TBLSHOW is itching to be KO'd. I've already directed him/her to your posts from last night, but alas, he/she is not satisfied. Please see post #268.

[SuziQ]

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.

The big difference between Bush and Clinton is that Bush requires something of the Palestinians before the US would recognize the state. He expects them to eschew terrorism. Clinton never made that stipulation; he only encouraged Israel to give up more and more land to the Palestinians and basically 'trust' them to stop. The people of Israel couldn't afford to do that.