Bush and His Big Gov

WorldNetDaily ^ | 10/05/2002 | Kyle Williams

[sheltonmac]

The Republican Party, it seems, is now domestically divided among two extremes: those who are blindly supporting President Bush and those who aren't domestically supporting the president based on his actions while in office.

However, many of us have been caught up in the middle, undecided, and staying as spectators in this situation. The truth is, Bush is a very likeable guy, and he knows what he's doing. Most conservatives long for the time when the great Ronald Reagan was president, and Bush has filled that gap for some.

Yet, we have seen questionable actions by President Bush that Reagan would despise. Politics is a game and, in that game, you will have to compromise on issues and legislation to gain political capital in order to push for those core principles you believe in – that's the way it works. That means you will not compromise your core beliefs.

In addition, the real and pure conservatism submits itself to the Constitution and will follow it to the end, not supporting unconstitutional programs and bills. Unfortunately, this is a rare breed of conservatism in Congress and in the Oval Office today.

To make the case for this, we must outline some of the key programs and bills to be supported and signed by the president since the start of his administration.

President Bush and his White House buddies passed the USA Patriot Act after the Sept. 11 attacks. This has got to be one of the most freedom-grabbing bills for some time and specifically goes against the conservative principle of smaller government.

Bush pushed for, agreed with and signed the farm legislation this past summer. This bill, which is in the stack alongside other unconstitutional legislation, takes money from one person's hand and gives it to someone else – a legalized theft operation that the Constitution does not allow. Again, this bill also goes against the conservative principle of smaller government.

Campaign finance reform is another one of them. Yes, this is the same bill that Mr. Bush vowed not to support and to veto during the campaign. Still, with all his political capital, he signed the legislation. This legislation destroyed a key element of basic freedom – something real conservatives usually like to keep.

Another issue in the pile is the Homeland Security legislation. While Congress has yet to pass this, the White House has practically authored it, demanding certain components and financial plans. Although security is a must in the post 9-11 world, the proposed Homeland Security Department will amazingly increase government, the power it has, and will suck up billions of dollars from the budget.

Lastly, you have the Sept. 11 charity program, which gave millions of dollars to each victim of the terrorist attacks. While this may sound fine, it goes back to the concerns of Davey Crocket that a precedent such as this will open the spigot of the federal budget and allow for any victim to receive some sort of severance pay – such an ability is economically unfeasible.

Our president has done many things for conservatism, such as opposing the International Criminal Court and the Kyoto Treaty, as well as being the leader we need in the war on terror. But on core, constitutional issues he let us down, and he continues to let us down.

We keep hearing from the neoconservatives that it will be different when Republicans take over the Senate, but I'm not so sure. I'm anxious to find out what the excuse is going to be from Republicans when they do take over the Senate.

I really wish I could support President Bush on domestic issues, but I can't. My principles are stronger than my emotions, and I hold true to that. I will not sacrifice those principles for a likeable guy.

George W. Bush is no conservative.

---

Kyle Williams is 13 years old, home-schooled and lives in a rural community in America's heartland. His column title, "VERITAS," is Latin for "truth." He particularly enjoys following current news events – and writing about them – and is extremely interested in politics. Kyle believes he may one day have a career in journalism. For now, he offers his unique perspective to the readers of WorldNetDaily.

[Sabertooth]

Pardon me if I don't let you, a known Bush basher, decide what I did and didn't say.

And I made my point right off; you just don't agree with it.

I haven't decided anything, I've looked at your posts on this thread.

All you have to do is cite them, if I'm wrong.

[marajade]

I think the kid needs to do some more research about Reagan's tenure in office and compare it to how Bush has done in the last two years...

Actually they have been similar...

[marajade]

I'd really like to hear about what "principles" are and mean from the perspective of a 13 year old...

[Howlin]

As I said, that's your opinion; and on threads like these, you certainly could be defined as "in lockstep."

[marajade]

The author critizes Bush for signing spending bills that bring us into huge deficits...

Reagan signed just as many spending bills that brought the budget into huge deficits and Reagan didn't have a war to contend with.

[Sabertooth]

I think the kid needs to do some more research about Reagan's tenure in office and compare it to how Bush has done in the last two years...

Actually they have been similar...

I think there are some definite similarities. I also think the worked "despise" is out of line with Reagan's temperment.

[Luis Gonzalez]

As I pointed out on my previous post, while young Kyle claims for himself the mantle of undecided, he closes the article with a blow to the President.

With age, Kyle may come to recognize the blatant contradiction in his article.

[philman_36]

This is what the Homeland Security is designed to do: streamlining our resources in order to better defend the Nation.
Really?
TITLE I — DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Section 101. Executive department; mission.
This section establishes the Department of Homeland Security in the executive branch of the United States government and defines its primary missions and responsibilities. The primary missions of the department include preventing terrorist attacks within the United States, reducing the vulnerability of the United States to terrorism at home, and minimizing the damage and assisting in the recovery from any attacks that may occur. The Department’s primary responsibilities correspond to the five major functions established by the bill within the Department: information analysis and infrastructure protection; chemical, iological, radiological, nuclear, and related countermeasures; border and transportation security; emergency preparedness and response; and coordination with other parts of the federal government, with state and local governments, and with the private sector. These primary missions and responsibilities are not exhaustive, and the Department will continue to carry out other functions of the agencies it will absorb.
Sounds like EO 13010 and a bunch of others all combined. Its also interesting to see just which agencies and functions are and are not transferred to the Department of Homeland Security. What you see as "streamlining our resources" I see as "enlarging government".

And what about Jane Harman's (D-CA) Homeland Security Information Sharing Act (H.R. 4598)? Seems like legislation is in place so why is a Department of Homeland Security necessary if a seperate Act can do the same thing as establishing a whole new department?
I guess I just don't get it.

[Joe Hadenuf]

Reagan signed just as many spending bills that brought the budget into huge deficits and Reagan didn't have a war to contend with.

What exactly does Reagan, Jimmy Carter or anyone else have to do with this current administration?

[marajade]

"What exactly does Reagan, Jimmy Carter or anyone else have to do with this current administration?"

Well for this author its about a true Republican glory days administration that occurred before the author was even born and very obviously not well researched.

[Sabertooth]

As I said, that's your opinion; and on threads like these, you certainly could be defined as "in lockstep."

Howlin, cite your earlier post that makes the point you retroactively claimed at #41. If all I have is my opinion, that should be easy to do.

[Kwilliams]

I support President Bush because he is our presidential leader and I support his war on terror. However, taking two steps backward and one step forward does no good for the cause of conservatism.

I know politics takes compromise, I wrote that in the article, but I also wrote about not sacrificing your core principles for political gain.

[Howlin]

Exactly.

By saying However, many of us have been caught up in the middle, undecided, and staying as spectators in this situation, he's trying to imply he's fair and balanced, just an onlooker.

However, he goes on to make the case for the anti-Bushers, while not supplying much supporting evidence, or giving the "BushBots" equal time.

I've seen plenty of people on here whose opinion I value say Bush is MORE conservative than Reagan.

[marajade]

what core principles if Bush sacrificing?

[CPI News]

Well for this author its about a true Republican glory days administration that occurred before the author was even born and very obviously not well researched.

Well, at least Kyle knows when to put apostrophies in his "its".

[Joe Hadenuf]

The author critizes Bush for signing spending bills that bring us into huge deficits..

Reagan signed just as many spending bills that brought the budget into huge deficits and Reagan didn't have a war to contend with.

Who really gives a damn what Reagan did? Why are some of us living in the past?

Is President Bush competing with Reagan?

[Howlin]

Read #2. Now, if you cannot deduce from that my point that if HE didn't feel like that was the truth he shouldn't have started his article with it, then that's your problem not mine.

The statement However, many of us have been caught up in the middle, undecided, and staying as spectators in this situation.

does't mean he's one of the ones in the middle; it merely means he's putting on airs about being impartial.

[CIB-173RDABN]

Considering some of the crap that Bush is pulling domestically, we might as well be ruled by Clinton again. Great...he doesn't rape his interns, and gave us some of our own money back. And thats about it. Woopie...

---

Fine, President Bush is not conservative enough for you. Name me one person that is conservative enough for you, and has the possibility of being elected President.

You can not do it.

[marajade]

That's petty. Are you saying that one's use of an apostrophe says everything about one's intelligence level?

My husband has an IQ of a genius and can't even spell sixth grade level words...

[Joe Hadenuf]

In addition, the real and pure conservatism submits itself to the Constitution and will follow it to the end, not supporting unconstitutional programs and bills. **Unfortunately, this is a rare breed of conservatism in Congress and in the Oval Office today.**

Boy for 13 years old, this kid is smart......