Posted on 01/13/2004 11:43:35 AM PST by AndyObermann
The Final Straw? Accountability for President Bush
By: Andy Obermann
I’ve finally come to a real dilemma. With Election ’04 on the horizon, this dilemma is growing daily. On one hand, we have the President Bush whose strong stance in the face of international terror has kept us safe and inspired a renewed sense of American patriotism. A man I admire greatly for his courage and leadership. But on the other hand, we have the President Bush whose outrageous spending and domestically liberal policies have practically bankrupted the federal government, forcing almost imperial control over state rights.
It all started with the No Child Left Behind Act that the President signed into law on June 8, 2002. The bill, authored by Massachusetts Democrat, Sen. Ted Kennedy, drastically increased, not only spending for education, but federal control over state policies regarding the issue. As an education major, I am witness to the flaws of this legislation. The main problem is educational standards. Let me explain. Each state is federally mandated to administer a standardized test to pupils to evaluate performance. The student performance level on this exam primarily determines federal funding, but may also cause a federal takeover of a school system if performance levels are not satisfactory for a given number of years. The stickler is that states are allowed to determine their own satisfactory performance level. For example, in Missouri, the current level for “proficiency” is 3 (out of 5). In Kansas, our neighbor state, the level for “proficiency” is 2. What does this mean? Quite simply it means, while it may appear that students in Kansas are performing at a satisfactory level, they are actually performing at a level lower than that of Missouri. It may appear that Kansas pupils are competent, but in reality, they are held to lower expectations in hopes of maintaining government funding. Missouri schools will lose funding and be placed on “watch” lists, while Kansas schools will be praised for their “successful” educational programs.
While I’m on the subject of education, what ever happened to the President’s school choice initiative? I, for one, was in full support of the voucher program, as were many of the constituents that got Bush elected in the first place. Maybe he’s waiting for an opportune time to announce a new proposal to Congress, or maybe he just forgot. Who knows? Regardless, the President’s handling of the education system garnered him “Strike 1” in my little book of disagreement.
I thought that this could have been a blunder on the part of the President. After all, all leaders are human and mistakes are going to be made. Then came “Strike 2”.
Last November, the President signed a bill granting tax payer-funded prescription drug coverage to America’s seniors. Congressional Republicans authored the legislation that is supposed to cost $400 billion over the next 10 years, but will be upwards of 2 trillion after subsidies kick in. The subsidies are basically entitlements for corporations—bribes so they won’t drop the current coverage their retirees receive. The program has increased, not only the size of government, which, by the way, Republicans should be against, but the spending rate to boot. It is inevitable that our well-deserved tax cuts will be repealed and raised drastically to pay for this monstrosity. Bush sold the economic welfare of my generation, and undoubtedly many generations to come, to assure a solid voting block of geriatrics come election time. Way to go, Mr. President.
Strike 3” came last March, when the President signed Campaign Finance Reform legislation, better known as McCain-Feingold, into law. While many view the bill as a ban on soft money, they neglect to see the massive encroachment of free speech the legislation entails. Attack ads, funded by Political Action Committees (PACs), are banned 30 days before a primary and 60 days before an election. Regardless of what you think of PACs, the Constitution clearly establishes that “Congress shall make no law abridging…the freedom speech.” If this statement can be used to cover someone burning an American flag, it damn sure covers the right of an organization to run a political ad. I suppose the Supreme Court should be lynched for this one too, since they found it constitutional in review, but had Bush not signed it in the first place, it would be a non-issue.
So I’m fed up, but its not over yet. The President now announces his proposal to basically grant amnesty to illegal aliens, illegally living and working in the United States. Now I know, the President said he was against amnesty and this program in no way grants it, but let’s be real. Amnesty is defined as: A general pardon granted by a government for illegal activities. The President proposal is rewarding those who came to this country illegally, and who work and live in this country illegally, with legal status by granting three-year temporary “work visas”. These visas are renewable—probably until the end of time.
Now I agree, something had to be done to remedy our current border debacle. Getting these people documented was priority one, and I applaud the President for getting this much done. I do realize that it is not feasible to deport these people, as well. But what the President has done is not the answer for which conservatives were looking. Along with getting these people documented, the President should have increased border security, even to the point of putting the National Guard or Army Reserves on the border. Yes, this would take a drastic overhaul of military resources, but it would be a necessary step if one were serious about stifling our now overwhelming illegal immigration situation.
By granting this quasi-amnesty, the President has done nothing but encourage further illegal activity. Yes, the proposal makes clear that it is necessary for these people show proof of employment, but I’m sure ways are being developed to maneuver around that inconvenience as we speak—after all, one isn’t supposed to live and work in this country illegally, in the first place. Ronald Reagan, perhaps the greatest President in American history, when questioned about granting amnesty in 1986, referred to it as the single biggest mistake of his presidency. President Bush should have learned something from this example. Hopefully Congress will.
By pushing all of this dangerous nonsense onto America, President Bush has taken steps to emphatically alienate his conservative base. He has taken us for granted in a grand series of political maneuvers. Bush expects that with the ultra-left rhetoric from the Democratic candidates and high likelihood that Howard Dean, the most liberal of them all, will receive the nomination, conservatives have nowhere to go—therefore, he can seek to expand his electorate by pursuing this domestically liberal agenda.
On defense, President Bush has no rival. His leadership in the War on Terror, coupled with the enhanced presence of military strength abroad, has satiated conservatives to the point where they are willing to overlook this reckless spending and domestic policies, but is that enough? I’ve defended the President on many occasions when leftists lambasted him for his failures. From tax cuts to terrorism, I have been on the President’s side. But this string of domestic policy has left me outraged and I find it hard to defend.
In the end, I suppose Bush is right, core conservatives have nowhere else to go. I can’t count on any of these democratic candidates to protect us the way Bush has, but it is enraging to sit back and watch Bush sell us down the river on domestic issues in an attempt to assure a second term. This is my quagmire.
The President will most likely be re-elected, and he will most likely get my vote, but I hope he reconsiders the direction he intends to lead this country. If not, it will take decades to undo the damage he has done.
It is you who wallow and it is ignorance you wallow in. Bush's Amnesty will accelerate the welfare state/entitlement state condition of this country to the point where we are in worse shape than Mexico has ever been.
You have the right to believe that's impossible. You have the right to think resistance to that is self pity. Those are your God given entitlements. But your belief in a fantasy won't change the immutable law of cause and effect.
Inviting the world's poor to come share in our wealth while simultaneously spending the hoped for excess of several future generations will lead to one inevitable outcome. The nations of the world eagerly await the day when we owe each of them more than we can pay in a lifetime. I'm sure they'll be compassionate creditors.
(sarcasm on)How could the legislation possibly be flawed?
It was crafted by Ted Kennedy, the third smartest person ever created. The first and second being Billary!(sarcasm off)
www.bushrevealed.com
The bible is my authority. Read Eph. 5:11 and 1Cor 2:15:
And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove [them].
It is right and correct and biblical to expose Bush's anti-Christian statements and activities. The bible also says, But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. (1Cor 2:15)
We must judge, the key is we are not to judge self-righteously (Ro. 2:1). If we didn't judge, we could not administer church discipline properly. I do not think it is self-righteous judgment to hold Bush's feet to the fire for his errors. It is not just one error - it is a whole bunch of them (did you read the website?), which indicates a pattern - a pattern of un-Christian or anti-Christian behavior and talk. He to be a Christian - he has made public statements to this effect - yet his actions do NOT reflect it.
Bottom line: Christians are called to Holy in all they do - including their vote, and voting for a candidate that does not represent biblical values is an error from a biblical standpoint. There are more than 2 parties. I refuse to be a prisonor of the 2-party system. It will change!
Again, go to www.bushrevealed.com and read.
B/c if you think that the democrats that are presently running have christian values--then I think your motives in this discussion need to be questioned.
Again, you are making an assumption that there are only 2 choices. That is wrong. Please step out of the box - your thinking is too PC.
What has President Bush done that would make one think he is not a christian--and please I don't need a website to tell me what to be worried about, my knowledge of Jesus Christ and the bible is all that I need to know a christian.
Again read the list on the website - then come back and we'll discuss it.
Tancredo should get the GOP nod. Him I could vote for.
Did you bother to read the website? Obviously not. Here are some facts about Bush that indicate he is more liberal than conservative: Expansion of the govt and spending at a clip only democrats can admire (this is socialism - a philospohy that is antithetical to personal responsibility, to limited government and to biblical principles); his letter of praise to the gay Metropolitan Church (contradicts biblical values and his putative family friendly platform); saying muslims and Christians worship the same God (decidedly unbiblical and contrary to Christian doctrine not to mention just plain dumb); signing of unconstitutional and anti-freedom bills like Patriot Act and CFR (so much for the Bill of Rights!); his immigration policies (which certainly appear to contradict his oath to protect America from foreign invasion and is tantamount to selective enforcement of laws - which is a form of tyranny); his abandonment of Taiwan in their quest for freedom from China (all that rhetoric about freedom is rining hollow about now); his support of the EGREGIOUS decision to remove the 10 commandments monument from Alabama court bldg.; his support for affirmative action in the Michigan Univ. case (racial prefrence is inconsistent with equal justice under the law - it's racism); his silence on the Lawrence v. Texas pro-sodomy decision (so much for defending and protecting the Constitution - there is no right to sodomy in the Constitution); and his inactivity on all pro-family fronts.
Your turn.
I gave you examples. NOW, DEFEND YOUR MAN - IF YOU CAN! By the way, you can't make me shut up - you don't have the power or the ability.
Okay, who are we voting for?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.