I've read and reread your points. I don't disagree with a lot that you said, and some of the plusses are definately worth keeping in mind.
I know that some of the avid supporters think that those who are unhappy with things that GW is doing are people that didn't vote for him etc. I definately did vote for him, and as I've mentioned in other posts, I actively worked during the election.
I deplored the Clinton scandles - Monica etc. - however my greatest worry was building up our enemy Communist China, the growth of socialism of America, and the erosion of the bill of rights. Socialism sucks the host dry and will eventually bankrupt US. Evidence this with the treasury's increasing indebtedness with the runaway growth of social spending.
The Patriot bill was my wake-up call that something was wrong when GW waid he was against sunsetting ANY of it. That scared me. Those that hold the 2A dear should worry about it. Sneak and peak provisions?? What kind of tools were being created for the next occupant of the White House?
The tax cuts were very good - however increasing spending on social programs in 17 months - more than Clinton did in 5 years offsets the amount we got. We in reality got a small 'loan' on our indebtedness.
Please direct me to the executive directive on RKBA - I missed that. If you do a search on the gw website there is a disturbing mentioning by Ari on closing the gun show loophole. Should we be confident that he wont do that or pass "reasonable gun laws?"
The situation with the ICC is not over yet. We'll have to see how this plays out - but I am glad that he said what he did. Will he follow through?
Cuba - what is the difference between Cuba and China except that Jeb is running for re-election in November.
When was the ergonomic rules passed? I don't remember that.
Yes, he has done a good job with the war on terrorism. Yes, I am relieved not to hear about vices in the WH.
Reagan man, I don't think we are getting 50% Conservatism. We aren't even in a holding pattern anymore. Should we be satisfied in our hearts as Americans to keep moving left, even if it is at a slower pace? Will there be a Republic left to pass on to our Grandkids? Should we just sit back and resign ourselves?
It's not about Bush - it's about the future of American freedom.
Respectfully,
Willa
>>>The Patriot bill was my wake-up call that something was wrong when GW waid he was against sunsetting ANY of it.
To the best of my knowledge, I don't remember President Bush saying this. If you have a direct quote, please provide it. There are 22 sections in the Patriot Act. 13 of these provisions have sunset clauses of 12-31-2005 and 9 provisions do not have sunset clauses. The one that upsets civil libertarians and ACLU types the most, is the section #213, allowing sneak and peek, searches and seizures. Many people have interpreted this as a troubling provision. Personally, I don't want to see 3000 or more people killed, in another heinous terrorist attack similiar to 9-11. I believe, as the President said, "...[The Patriot Act] upholds and respects the civil liberties guaranteed by our Constitution". I haven't lost any of my freedoms, liberties or rights since 9-11 due to the Patriot Act and I don't know of anyone who has. These laws apply mostly to criminals and terrorists.
>>>... however increasing spending on social programs in 17 months - more than Clinton did in 5 years...
Just where are you getting this stuff from? They sound like talking points from the political fringe. The last two years of Clinton, saw spending rise 9%. The first two years of the Bush adminsitration indicates a 15% increase. But consider the circumstances related to the recent economic recession, the 9-11 attacks and the war on terrorism. If homeland security and 9-11 emergency spending is excluded, nondefense spending rose by 3.3 percent in 2002 and is slated to decline by 0.4 percent in 2003. The biggest increases, is a 14+% boost in the DoD budget. Everything considered, I don't think its fair to compare Clinton to Bush.
>>>Please direct me to the executive directive on RKBA - I missed that.
In two briefs filed at the Supreme Court on Monday, May,6 2002, the Justice Department, reversing what had been official government policy since 1939, on the meaning of the Second Amendment, told the Supreme Court for the first time, the Constitution "broadly protects the rights of individuals" to own firearms. The RKBA`s is an individual right and not a collective right, as liberals have been espousing for the last six decades. The Solicitor General's office attached the Ashcroft letter and included the following footnote to explain its new position:
"In its brief to the court of appeals, the government argued that the Second Amendment protects only such acts of firearm possession as are reasonably related to the preservation or efficiency of the militia. The current position of the United States, however, is that the Second Amendment more broadly protects the rights of individuals, including persons who are not members of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to possess and bear their own firearms, subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons or to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse."
"This action is proof positive that the worst fears about Attorney General Ashcroft have come true: his extreme ideology on guns has now become government policy," said Michael Barnes, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which promotes gun control.
>>>When was the ergonomic rules passed? I don't remember that.
S.J. Res. 6 passed the Senate on a 56-44 vote March 7, 2001; the House on a 223-206 vote March 8, 2001, and was signed by President Bush March 20, 2001.
Thanks for the civil public discourse in our communications.