George W. Bush Advances the Liberal Agenda

Tactical Arms

Moderator
Hard facts about George "Trojan Horse" Bush:

"* His support of increased Federal involvement in the education of children at the state and local level. Funding for government education has increased billions of dollars under President Bush.

* His support of Clinton’s 1994 “assault weapons ban” which outlawed a host of semi-automatic guns. The gun ban was due to expire in 2004, but according to Presidential spokesman Scott McClellan, "The president supports the current law (the Clinton gun ban), and he supports reauthorization of the current law."

* His approval of federally-financed experimentation on human embryos.

* His support of Clinton’s National Monuments Declaration, in which millions of acres of western land were seized by the executive branch.

* His dramatic increase in the size and spending of the federal government with a record deficit. With his $2.23 trillion budget, his administration will complete the biggest increase in government spending since Lyndon Johnson’s "Great Society." The budget deficit predicted by the House Budget Office will hit a record $306 billion. Spending on government programs increased 22 % from 1999 to 2003. A Washington Post report said, "The era of big government, if it ever went away, has returned full-throttle under President Bush.” Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey commented that under President Bush, the federal government is "out of control."

* Not only did President Bush publicly condemn Judge Roy Moore’s actions, his chief political consultant Karl Rove spearheaded the attack against him. When Roy Moore was before Bill Pryor’s inquisition, about to lose his job for his public stand for God, President Bush was in California campaigning for a pro-abortion, pro-homosexual Republican, Arnold Schwarzenegger.

* His expansion of government welfare programs to illegal aliens and his proposals to grant amnesty to illegal aliens. President Bush has demonstrated dangerous negligence in restoring security to our borders.

* His proposal to increase the budget and the power of the Internal Revenue Service: “Bush would give the IRS a 5.3 percent boost to $10.4 billion for the budget year that begins Oct. 1. That will include $133 million dollars for added audits of businesses and high-income taxpayers.”

* His increased funding of the National Endowment of the Arts, which uses taxpayer money to publicize vulgar and blasphemous “art,” such as the artwork depicting a crucifix in a jar of urine.

* His endorsement and promotion of the globalist, sovereignty-threatening aims of the United Nations. He has continued the Clintonian policy of sending our soldiers to serve under U.N. commanders on U.N. missions.

* He signed into law a massive expansion of Medicare that, according to Ron Paul (R-Texas), resulted in "the single largest expansion of the federal welfare state since the Great Society programs of the 1960s."

* In spite of the fact that he campaigned on the promise to veto any campaign finance reform legislation that limited Americans’ freedom of speech, he signed into law the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill that effectively eviscerated the first amendment.

* With the so-called Patriot Act and the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003, his remedy for terrorism has been an ever-growing police state. These pieces of legislation read like KGB manuals of an all-powerful Leninist state – Janet Reno could only dream of serving under such a President! The government can bug and search citizens and their private records without court oversight and without suspicion of a crime; they can lock you up indefinitely without a formal charge; they can deny you an attorney and a jury of your peers, etc. Our leaders have exploited a tragedy to retire as the servants of the citizens and attempt to usurp constitutional limitations to become our masters.

G.W. Bush is pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, he’s anti-gun, and he’s the biggest spender in American history. American conservatives have taken the bait at the expense of their cause and God’s glory."


http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3114.html
 
""It is no exaggeration to say that President Bush kills babies." That's a great web site."

Which is perfectly true, when one looks at the overwhelming documentation provided by the article:

"Thanks to G.W. Bush’s leadership, companies such as Planned Parenthood, the largest baby-killing conglomerate in the world, will get taxpayer funding. Planned Parenthood was responsible for the deaths of 227,385 Americans in 2002 alone. Planned Parenthood's 2002-2003 Annual Report shows that 33 % of its income came from federal government grants and contracts totaling $254.4 million in the fiscal year ending in June 2003, thanks to Medicaid disbursements and President Bush’s Title X of the Public Health Service Act in 2001. Under Bush, this baby-killing organization has received more tax-funds than under Clinton! Thanks in large part due to government handouts under President Bush, Planned Parenthood raked in a hefty $36.6 million profit in its last fiscal year.16

It is no exaggeration to say that President Bush kills babies. He uses his influence and power to perpetuate the Abortion Holocaust. Abortion abolitionists need to look beyond the Republican Party to find friends for the preborn. Those of us who supported George W. Bush and elected him to office may be responsible for the bloodshed that he perpetuated, either by way of our willful ignorance or our intentional refusal to judge righteous judgment, to judge President Bush by its fruit."


http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3114.html
 
If I didn't know better, I'd think this was quickly turning into an abortion debate. Someone please tell me I'm wrong before I'm forced to hit the "mute" button. Abortion debates are off limits here, specifically because they quickly spiral into the "baby killer" name calling type of "debate" I see starting by post 2 or 3. There's definitely a place for that....but not here, OK?

Thanks much.
Rich
 
To shift this away from abortion:

I've been hearing for years how "tyrannical" our government is, from every possible philosophy, and yet, I've heard nothing in the way of solutions.

Are the liberals "evil" people with a socialist agenda? Eh, probably.
Are the conservatives "heartless rich men" seeking world domination? Probably.

What I find interesting is that "we the people" do nothing about it. We complain, and whine, and protest, and write letters, and the status quo remains, despite our objections and toils.

The hard fact is, despite the dissenting opinions from my fellow protestors, is that people must be governed. It is inevitable that in in any society, a few powerful people will successfully take up the reins and control the majority. It is not to our disadvantage, it is neccessary; the majority need controlling.

I do agree however, that we have picked the wrong people to govern us since the the beginning of the 19th Century. Democracy, Jefferson once wrote, is the rule by the rabble, and he couldn't be more right in our current situation. What we need in this country is a meritocracy -- rule by those who have proved themselves worthy to rule. Kerry wouldn't fit because let's face it, the most he's ever done was marry a rich woman. Bush wouldn't fit either, as his greatest claim to fame before becoming President was owning a last-place baseball team. We need a return to the philosopher kings of old, to return power to the hands of people whose assets are measured intellectually, not financially.
 
It's always interesting when someone shows up on a forum in the midst of an election and immediately goes after the one candidate or the other. I distinctly remember a pro-McCain member of TFL who disappeared after the 2000 primaries.

Tactical Arms, are you planning on staying on TFL after November?
 
Exactly. Republicans should be outraged over Bush. Any self-respecting Republican should vote for the Constitution or Libertarian Parties' candidates. Obviously, the Constitution Party is for those who don't believe in Jefferson's interpretation of the Religion clause, and the Libertarian Party is for those who do. (Note, however, that the vice president on the Libertarian ticket is an Iowa lawyer who went to theological school).
 
Tyme, I would vote Libertarian but for two reasons:

1) I can't get past their pro-drug policies. Just what we need: a nation of zombies.

2) Regardless of how much I'd rather see a third-party candidate in office, a third-party candidate will never win unless we re-evaluate the Electoral College. Thank you Mr. Roger MacBride.
 
fyre-
I don't see how legalization would cause greater abuse than the cuurent crop od child psychlogists. Personal Responsibility requires work. Some people will never work.
Rich
 
Doesn't matter. A Libertarian President would work to:
- repeal all obnoxious EOs, starting with Emperor George I's edict prohibiting importation of non-sporting firearms.
- force Congress to reach a 2/3 consensus on most legislative issues.

Rousseau makes a great point that passage on simple majority is a bad idea for most legislation. If it's really important, 2/3 of each legislative body should have no trouble passing it. (Rousseau would prefer even more than that, but I'll settle for 2/3.)

Even if you think the Libertarian Platform is a bad idea, isn't a 2/3 consensus in Congress a good requirement for passage of legislation based on the "general welfare" or "interstate commerce" clause?

1. Drug laws are a disaster. Some drugs are really bad, but the current situation is worse.

2. Great plan. Don't ever vote for a 3rd party candidate because they'll never win. :rolleyes: The two main parties have you and most other voters convinced that there's a substantial difference between Democratic and Republican candidates. There isn't as much of a difference as you'd like to believe.
 
The two main parties have you and most other voters convinced that there's a substantial difference between Democratic and Republican candidates.

Tyme, It's not up to me or you or the millions of other Libertarian-type thinkers. As long as we have the Electoral College doing our thinking for us, there will never be a third-party president.

And as far as drug laws go, it may be a disaster, because we can't differentiate between the "bad" drugs and the "ok" drugs. Crack, Cocaine, Heroin, PCP, LSD, Ectasy, Meth, Marijuana, -- all destructive substances that should be eradicated from our society forever. Alcohol and cigarettes, eh, they're ok, let's keep them :rolleyes: We can either be Mormons or potheads, but Americans have a hard time finding middle ground. I think we should make crack legal for a year and put all the scum dealers out of business. Maybe Marlboro would like the merchandising rights...
 
Well, let's see. Assumng Bush is promoting a liberal agenda, hence must be a liberal, then ridculous reasoning would hold that he is not a Christian. http://www.suarezinternational.com/christianwarrior6.html :barf:

Tactiical Arms, while you claim to be presenting facts and are using the facts to substantiate that Bush is advancing a liberal agenda, I have to call you on many points.

First, the amount of money a President spends does not substantiate one way or the other whether he is liberal or conservative. Yes, he has spent a lot of money, but then again he has been fighting ground wars on two fronts during his campaign. Believe it or not, such events cost money, lots of money.

Your source site for the information is inherently biased and proclaims itself to be so. As such, there is no reason to believe any of the information presented is actually accurate or presented in a contextually proper manner.

I liked your notation that Bush supported Clinton's National Monument Declaration land seizure of millions of acres. What you failed to note is that most of that land was already owned by the government - federally owned land. If already owned by the feds, changing the status to monuments isn't a seizure of land.

What I thought was really silly is how you noted it was seized by the executive branch. Very funny! Reduntantly silly! If the President brings in land under the Antiquities Act of 1906, it is and can only be by the executive branch. The judicial branch does not have that power and Clinton did not seize it for Congress. D'uh!

So TA, who are you voting for?
 
fyrestarter,

Tyme, I would vote Libertarian but for two reasons:

You forgot the third reason: You think that 70% of people need to be "controlled"; a statement antithetical to core libertarian values. That's like saying "I'd be a Marxist if I didn't believe in free-market capitalism."
 
In addition to the two Skull & Bones brothers, the Libertarian Party is out altogether for me:

"We call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally" (http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/immigrat.html)

This is national suicide. How this loose screw ever wound up as part of the LP platform is beyond me.
 
Can we vote to keep the office empty for the next 4 years? Could we do the same for congress? At least that way we know that they can't screw it up any worse for the next half decade!
 
LAK, the LP Platform calls for the abolition of welfare, too. When taken together, they do make sense. Non-working Mexicans won't immigrate in large numbers if they can't get free money from the government for themselves and for their children. And those that do immigrate won't be much of a burden.

Taking individual LP planks out of context and complaining about them really isn't fair to the LP.

That said, we should annex the northern part of Mexico so that Mexicans who want our freedoms (what's left of them, at least) can have them without increasing our population density so much. :)
 
Back
Top