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.
the leading candidate for president of the United States is incapable of providing the leadership necessary to achieve an essential rededication to the constitutional principles of limited government and individual rights.
That's why, under no circumstances, will I
allow myself to vote for George W. Bush
for president of the United States. He is
not qualified because he, like so many
other politicians today, does not believe in
nor understand the Constitution.
[
Reply |
Private Reply | Top | Last ]
LOL
Can't wait to hear Limbo pontificate (not).
Obviously Farah is a socialist,Gore supporting, radical, fascist, non-conservative....
Many sabotage their own life, and prevent their own successes.
Similarly, these people politically sabotage their success, always moving to the underdog no matter what.
That's why they can't vote for Bush.
I don't think Limbaugh would touch this with a 10-foot pole.
You guys are so smart, there is no difference. Al Gore will PROTECT the Constitution by appointing Justices who view the Constitution as a living document. GW Bush will appoint Justices who will interpret the orignial meaning of the Constitution.
If the choice is Al Gore or George W., there is really no choice at all. The first will take you to hell in the fast lane, the other will take you there in the slow lane. Either way, your destination is the same -- you're still on the highway to hell.
That's it, Folks!
PLEASE GOD -- PRESIDENT ALAN KEYES!!
Hmmm...
Funny how absent conservative criticism of Bush is on the Limbo show.
Yet people who vote their convictions (not pubocrat) are ridiculed daily (though I admit I have'nt listened in months- I prefer Brahms or Bluegrass on the morning drive)
How 'bout Keyes working in some elecive office first, ANY elected office before sitting in the highest office in the land.
He's never held elected office. None.
'Yet people who vote their convictions (not pubocrat) are ridiculed daily' I don't ridicule anybody that votes their convictions, but GW is a damn fine candidate. I couldn't vote for Dole or Bush Sr. the second time around, but I am voting my convictions this time, and it will be for GW Bush.
Nobody seems to take issue, so I must assume it's true:
Justice Thomas = Ruth Bater Ginsburg!
He's never held elected office. None.
Are you trying to advance the premise that having been a politician is a desired qualification?
[Coulda fooled me!]
The first will take you to hell in the fast lane, the other will take you there in the slow lane. Either way, your destination is the same -- you're still on the highway to hell.
If I'm in the slow lane, I stand a better chance of turning off the highway.
prisoner6
if you dont vote for bush - you are in effect voting for gore - they will not allow anyone that you would really like to vote for - they own the press and the media - so a real american does not have a chance - and the politicians are in general - whores - traitors and parasites - almost everyone of them would sell out america in a second - this was proved in the senate impeachment vote - they voted to retain a traitor - and ignored the damage he has done to this country - the whole thing now must be tied to term limits - but i dont think this will ever happen - the majority of congress is out of control - and i think the only way we will get back this country is by revolution - and i think this will happen within 10 years - i have this in front of me always - from the Declaration of Independence - "Governments are instituted among men - DERIVING THEIR JUST POWERS FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED - that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends - IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR ABOLISH IT - blood will flow - but this also was predicted - it all amounts to one thing - do you want to be free or be a slave - all forms of government are to some degree socialist - but when they get out of control - they are no more than a dicatator - they are going all out for the guns - realizing this is the only thing stopping them - and when the get the guns - the constitution is no more than toilet paper to the politicians - never ever trust a politician - and never believe what they say - their actions will speak for them
I think this new movie "Skull" will indicate why I will not vote for Bush Jr.
The final straw for me came when the Republican presidential candidate announced that he would not even try to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education if given the chance.Farah
Farah is (feel free to understand the meaning of this word as you normally would) a political fool. If Bush announced that he was going to abolish the Department of Education, it would be political suicide. Clinton/Gore/Democrats would beat him like a drum with demagogue attacks of being "anti-education". The reality of the makeup of the voting public today is that too many would fall for that "big lie". Sheeple do exist and vote in great numbers! Bush, like Reagan, was/is a political realist. And that my friends is why he has a chance to get elected and actually start moving this country back from the far left.
A Reagan and Clinton comparison, done by the constitutional purists would go something like this:
--------------------------------------- Reagan Clinton
Abolished Department of Education ? - No --- No
Abolished Federal Reserve ? --------- No --- No
Abolished Income Tax ? -------------- No --- No
Pulled United States from UN ? ------ No --- No
(con't) ----------------------------- No --- No
Their conclusion would be "See, there's not a dimes worth of difference between 8 years of Reagan and 8 years of Clinton. That's why I can't vote for Reagan."
What complete and utter idiocy! Buchanan/Philiips supporters have their collective heads in the sand of delusion to think their politician can get elected. Their candidate will forever be a 1-5% "percenter". I am not going to waste my vote on some utopian constitutional candidate, that has a snowballs chance in hell of getting elected. We didn't get here overnight and we won't get to perfection overnight.
remember ike?
"I think this new movie "Skull" will indicate why I will not vote for Bush Jr."
Great critical thinking. Everyone should base their voting decision on what comes from Hollywood......come to think of it many dolts do!
Let's see, there was once an actor who became President, and I am pretty sure many people voted for him because they knew him from acting- were they dolts also? Or did they end up doing the country a service?
Bingo!
It could have just as well read:
"Why I'm voting for Al Gore"
this is for all you "I can't bring myself to vote for Bush" folks. Like it or not - the choice is Bush or Gore. Maybe Bush isn't perfect. But as in most elections, you're forced to take the better of the two running. Because the better of the 2 may not be perfect or your ideal candidate, you still neeed to pick the better of the two.
now here's where the Keyes, Buchanan or third party folks get all upset. Keyes is a fine man and brilliant orator. Buchanan has some good ideas. But you folks border on insanity or, with my apologies, stupidity if you think either of them has a chance in hell of being elected. ANY 3rd party guy would have to carry enough states to prevent GWB or AG from getting a majority of the electoral vote. (Perot's 20% in '92 still got him ZERO electoral votes). If in the very unlikely event that happened, then the election would go to the House of cowards--er.. Representatives. Anyone out there think the house would pick the 3rd party guy EVEN if he (or she) had the highest popular vote total? if so, then go have yourself looked at.
Stay home if you want. or hopelessly cast your vote for the 3rd candidate. and we'll get Gore. Guaranteed. Like it or not. Believe it. Deal with it. and if there's enough of you people out there, again, this time we will have Gore. and the nightmare will continue and intensify. And you folks will be partly responsible.
Right now, in this election, the best and only way to bring an end to the clinton/gore/dem/lib nightmare is to vote for Bush.
now you can disagree and post until your fingers bleed. but that last sentence is undeniably true.
At one time, Farah and Limbaugh were pretty tight buds. Back in the Sacramento days. I don't know if that is still true. I believe it is now more of a relationship by convience. If one can use the others material to justify a point, they mention each other. When the can't, I don't think they go out of their ways to step on each others toes. I was on Rush's show one time and from memory asked about one of Farah's more controversial stands. I suggested that Farah was sometimes on the fringe. While Rush didn't opennly say "I agree with you"; neither did he disagree. His response was one of plausable deniability. Unfortunately, I don't remember exactly what his comment was. It was something like "you could come away with that conclusion."(If you listen to Rush closely, you'll often come away with an impression that he has said something concrete about a question or topic, only later to discover on second listen he in fact didn't say anything specific at all. For example with this answer example, he could simply state that he was saying that the caller could come away with the conclusion that Farah is sometimes on the fringe. The key word here is how he uses the word "you". Does it mean you, as in the caller only, or does you in his response mean in a collective sense, including himself, that objective people would come to the conclusion that Farah is on the fringe. The use of the language in this way is quite an art!)
I believe if you look at the acknowledgements or thank yous at the front of Limbaugh's books, you will find the name of Farah. I believe there have been articles written in Rush's early days about their Sacramento days.
What your final sentence say is very true.
Keyesters and the Pitch Fork Brigraders have trouble with having to accept what they feel is second best. I have for some months pondered the problem of what these groups are going through.
While the vote for Bush is insurance of removing Clinton/Gore, the vote for Bush also implies approval of the Bush agenda. And I think that is the sticking point. If it was simply a matter of stopping another four years of Clinton/Gore, then a vote for Bush would be easy. But rightly or wrongly, each Keyester and Brigader has certain issues that are key to them. And those issues, in their opinion and for that matter factually, will probably get lost in a Bush administration where there are other priorities. Certainly if you are anti-NAFTA, it's lost. If you are pro life at any cost, it's lost. Simply put, do you want your vote to be implied approval of something you disagree with? I think that's where they have a problem with a "win at all costs' mentality.
I zipped over to WND and read this piece and found it full of bull. It seems that some people who call themselves conservative when they are not. This author is such a purist that he would rather lose than win if his cause is just. People like this author are doomed to be losers and will never be in a position enact their agenda. America historicaly doesnot make radicial changes in political direction , this man will never understand this. To overturn what has gone on for the last 50 years will never be done overnight. George W. Bush understands this. So all you losers listen to this author. Don't complain when Gore is elected. GO BUSH!!!!!!!!!
GREAT, GREAT, GREAT response!!!
fine. you're right.
but then we'll have gore.
to me THE most important issue in this election is to end the nightmare. the lies, corruption, felonies, treason, coverups, cowardice (that would be the republicans in congress)
now if bush gets in, despite these 3rd party folks and the media-whore propaganda campaugn, and his DOJ fails to pursue criminal investigations of the clintons and their henchmen, then all is lost and the wholesale corruption of the federal government will be institutionalized.
if you dont vote for bush - you are in effect voting for gore - so a real american does not have a chance
I'm supporting a candidate that opposes the socialist, globalist, and pro-abortion positions for which George W. Bush and Al Gore stand. I'm working toward giving Americans a chance to restore government to Constitutional integrity and reduce their tax burden in the process by supporting Howard Phillips.
almost everyone of them would sell out america in a second - this was proved in the senate impeachment vote - they voted to retain a traitor - and ignored the damage he has done to this country
the majority of congress is out of control - and i think the only way we will get back this country is by revolution - and i think this will happen within 10 years - i have this in front of me always - from the Declaration of Independence - "Governments are instituted among men - DERIVING THEIR JUST POWERS FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED - that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends - IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR ABOLISH IT
It's time to hold the politicians accountable who have governed in a destructive manner and REPLACE THEM.
- never ever trust a politician - and never believe what they say - their actions will speak for them
Let's look at the actions of W: - As governor he accepted Goals 2000 funds for his state, going against the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution and the GOP platform which rejects federal involvement in education.
When Howard Phillips was head of the Office of Economic Opportunity, he used his position to stop the empowerment of the left at taxpayer expense. When Nixon told him to stop, Phillips resigned his position in 1972. Phillips, who was a Republican at the time, later called for Nixon's resignation. He was putting principle over partisan politics then.
In the past 4 years, Phillips worked with Bob Barr in drafting his resolution for an impeachment inquiry, and as chairman of the Conservative Caucus, he rallied public support for impeachment efforts and continually lobbied Congress toward that end.
Going back to the Bush administration, Phillips stood for the right to life, testifying before the Senate about David Souter's pro-abortion record.
Phillips has a record of actions worth supporting, and I don't want to support the usurpations advocated by Bush and Gore nor the usurpations they have already committed.
Eaglet, I would like to respond to Joseph Farah's editoral. Please bear with me as I am new at this, this is why I need to piggy-back on your post,so with your permission, I would like to muse a bit.
Thah Mr, Farah cannot vote for Bush is no surprise. The media hates Bush. No individual that is brainwashed by the media will vote for Bush.
assuming that Clinton leaves office upon the expiration of his term [which I doubt]we will have a new president in 2001. It is either going to be Al Gore [the media hopes] or George Bush.
Depending on your point of view, Clinton is either the best president we have ever had, or [my opinion] the worst. Al Gore, should he be elected, will make Bill Clinton seem like a sunday School teacher as far as taking what few freedoms Clinton has left from you. If you do not believe me, that is o.k.,just wait and see for yourself.
Gore has never told the truth, it is not that he lies, he just incapable of telling the truth. He wants the government to own and control everything, even your thought process. Should you bow down and worship him and the Democratic Party, you will be taken care of. If you don't bow down and worship him and the democratic Party, you will still be taken care of, but in a different way.
The press has not been anle to dig anything damaging on George Bush. There have been and will be more lies , each more vicious and vile surfacing in the future but that is what they will be, only lies.
In closing,any who values and cherishes their personal freedoms will vote for Bush.
Like it or not - the choice is Bush or Gore. Maybe Bush isn't perfect. But as in most elections, you're forced to take the better of the two running.
As far back as I can remember, there were other options available. In 1988, Ron Paul made himself available. In 1992, there was Ross Perot and Howard Phillips. (This was the first year I was able to vote, and I wasn't knowledgable of all the options available. In 1996, there was Ross Perot, Howard Phillips (who was the only candidate to increase support for his party by more than quadrupling it), Harry Browne, Ralph Nader, Ross Perot, and John Hagelin. I don't recall anyone being forced to vote for just the Democrat and the Republican nominees.
Because the better of the 2 may not be perfect or your ideal candidate, you still neeed to pick the better of the two.
Does that mean when someone offers you a choice between a fish that has been rotting for 3 days and a fish that has been rotting for 7 days, you chose the fish that has been rotting for 3 days just because it is better?
If you're hungry enough, the right the to do would be to seek out another source of food and reject both bad options offered to you. Both Bush and Gore are campaigning against the Constitution, and both, to a degree, support the legality of abortion and have supported the pro-abortion agenda within their respective parties. Many of us are not going to support either of them.
(Perot's 20% in '92 still got him ZERO electoral votes). If in the very unlikely event that happened, then the election would go to the House of cowards--er.. Representatives. Anyone out there think the house would pick the 3rd party guy EVEN if he (or she) had the highest popular vote total? if so, then go have yourself looked at.
I don't know about Perot's ballot access status in 1992, but I do know that in 1996 Howard Phillips had ballot access in enough states where if he did get a plurality of votes, those could have translated into electoral college votes. He is on the way to doing this again, and I believe Pat Buchanan is also working toward this end.
and if there's enough of you people out there, again, this time we will have Gore.
The GOP could be responsible for Gore's election if they fail to nominate a candidate that stands for Constitutional principles. They still have a chance with Alan Keyes, but they don't with Bush. The burden of proof is on the Republicans to show what they really stand for. In 1996 they failed, which is why I have been working toward making another option available in the Constitution Party.
Right now, in this election, the best and only way to bring an end to the clinton/gore/dem/lib nightmare is to vote for Bush.
Bush hasn't even won the GOP nomination, so the GOP still has a chance to restore the public's trust in it. There are over 7 months until the election, and if those of us who seek real tax relief and the restoration of government to its Constitutional framework get involved in supporting a likeminded candidate, we have a chance.
Both Bush and Gore are campaigning against the Constitution. Given the socialism, globalism, and tax burden that Bush and Gore are offering, such a chance is worth fighting for.
Thanks for that interesting analysis of the relationship between Rush and Farah.
I don't agree with a lot of Rush's conclusions, but the raw facts that he conveys are much more worthwhile than the big 3 network newswires & TV shows.
Farah is a man to be admired for his stands. He took the heat from Hillary because of the things he reported about Clinton. He is an example of what it means for one to stand for his beliefs.
A vote for BUSH is a vote for VICTORY and a vote against the democratic agenda. George Bush is a man of principle, integrity and of conservative ideals. Bush is also a nominee that CAN WIN by staying focussed and not allowing the press, the brigadeers or the keyesters to define him.
GO BUSH GO
Limbaugh has been the chief mass media spear-carrier in redefining "Conservatism"...what he describes as such is actually an Oligarchic Materialism. He lost me as a listeneer on the day he described the arch-parasite Michael Millken as a wronged American Hero.
No coincidence that "George W. Bush" is an anagram for "We go beg Rush"...
Globalism and Plutocracy have poisoned the soul of Reagan's GOP...
SURE!! As a Southern Governor, Bush Jr. is every bit as experienced and qualified as his colleagues Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter...
You're right. Algore may be unthinkable but the globalist political agenda of NWO Bush Jr. is as unendorseable.
After pinching its nose so tightly to vote for the Plutocracy's Bush Sr. & Bobdole, I'm surprised that the Republican electorate isn't forced to breathe through its ears...
As far back as I can remember, there were other options available. In 1988, Ron Paul made himself available. In 1992, there was Ross Perot and Howard Phillips. (This was the first year I was able to vote, and I wasn't knowledgeable of all the options available. In 1996, there was Ross Perot, Howard Phillips (who was the only candidate to increase support for his party by more than quadrupling it), Harry Browne, Ralph Nader, Ross Perot, and John Hagelin. I don't recall anyone being forced to vote for just the Democrat and the Republican nominees.
We're talking about REAL options, not candidates who stand a greater than the proverbial snowball's chance in hell of getting elected. Over 90 years ago, Teddy Roosevelt came closest to getting elected as a third-party candidate, 90 years ago an "almost"! This country can't wait another 90 years.
Does that mean when someone offers you a choice between a fish that has been rotting for 3 days and a fish that has been rotting for 7 days, you chose the fish that has been rotting for 3 days just because it is better? If you're hungry enough, the right the to do would be to seek out another source of food and reject both bad options offered to you. Both Bush and Gore are campaigning against the Constitution, and both, to a degree, support the legality of abortion and have supported the pro-abortion agenda within their respective parties. Many of us are not going to support either of them.
Most people ( with common sense ) when hungry enough will eat whatever it takes to stay alive. You're proposition is as silly as saying starving people should reject the possibly rotting fish, because it's not 5 star lobster from LaCirc.
The GOP could be responsible for Gore's election if they fail to nominate a candidate that stands for Constitutional principles. They still have a chance with Alan Keyes, but they don't with Bush. The burden of proof is on the Republicans to show what they really stand for. In 1996 they failed, which is why I have been working toward making another option available in the Constitution Party.
There are not enough voter out there to elect a constitutional purist today. No one with any sanity can dispute this fact. NOT, ENOUGH, NOT ENOUGH, NOT ENOUGH! KEEP REPEATING THIS!
Bush hasn't even won the GOP nomination, so the GOP still has a chance to restore the public's trust in it. Bush has enough delegates to guarantee the nomination.
The ea·glet (glt)
n.
A young eagle.
Another well meaning person who doesn't yet have enough understanding to see that the greedy "all or nothing" mindset will guarantee them "NOTHING". Maybe this will sink in when you mature into a full grown eagle.
We're talking about REAL options, not candidates who stand a greater than the proverbial snowball's chance in hell of getting elected.
Correction: "...not candidates who DO NOT stand a greater than the proverbial snowball's chance in hell of getting elected."
I won't vote for Bush cuz I really like algore and his earth tones and his bleeding heart and cuz he feels my pain. I especially like th eway algore preceives the constitution -- as a worthless piece of paper written over 200 years ago by a bunch of slave-owning racists. I like the way algore wants to divide us up into little groups based on our skin color and ethnicity. I think it's great the way algore wants to keep our children in government-controlled schools so they can be indoctrinated in the saving graces of socialism and become dependent on the government and politicians.
If you believe all that, I have a bridge I'll sell you reeeeeeeeeal cheap.
With all due respect to Joe Farah, Bush may not be the perfect candidate, but he sure beats the alternative.
SURE!! As a Southern Governor, Bush Jr. is every bit as experienced and qualified as his colleagues Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter...
Yup.
You got it.
You stated....."assuming that Clinton leaves office upon the expiration of his term [which I doubt]we will have a new president in 2001. It is either going to be Al Gore [the media hopes] or George Bush."
IMO Clinton will leave office because the 'International Elite Establishment' will be comfortable with Gore or Bush as his replacement.
They are interwoven with the Chinese government, and may be a power behind the scenes there.
The Chinese influence in American politics started while Nixon was VP, and increased while George Bush was Ambassador to China and Kissinger was Secretary of State.
There has been an unholy alliance between the Red Chinese and the NWO. Both think that in the long run, they can control the other one. The NWO plans to use the good life and economic power and the Red Chinese plan to use military power. It's only a matter of when.
As you can see the NWO is losing control, and the Chinese are gaining strategic advantage all the time. Much of this is due to traitorous acts by our elected officials.
Kruschev said it all. 'We can buy you and we will bury you without firing a shot.'(paraphrased)
We are like the frog in the pan of water. The temperature changes gradually until it is boiling. The frog doesn't react and is boiled alive.
We should not miss this opportunity to jump ship and go with a 3rd party before our sovereignty is gone for good.
You also stated....."The press has not been anle to dig anything damaging on George Bush. There have been and will be more lies , each more vicious and vile surfacing in the future but that is what they will be, only lies."
You can't be serious. There is so much dirt out there on Bush that the main stream media has to be covering it up.
Take a look at This site for starters.
truth_eagle Member since 02/13/2000
sport Member since 03/17/2000
penelopep Member since 03/06/2000
Gunner9mm Member since 02/09/2000
Wonder how a man could spend $70 - $80 million before the campaign is half over? Some of it goes to internet spinners whose job it is to hang aroung conservative and principled web sites supporting the status quo, and trying to destroy the credibility of those who speak up regarding the need for change.
You're doing good work for Phillips. If the election were to be held today, he'd have my vote. This from a person who has voted Libertarian in every election since 1976 (the start of the Bush/Dole era in Republican politics). But I'm getting too old to carry on the battle for months at a time. I'm saving myself for the Sept/Oct frenzy. My advice: Carry on, but don't waste too much energy fighting idiots, and avoid responding directly to any of them.
now if bush gets in, despite these 3rd party folks and the media-whore propaganda campaugn, and his DOJ fails to pursue criminal investigations of the clintons and their henchmen, then all is lost and the wholesale corruption of the federal government will be institutionalized.
It's the republican congress who is responsible for this activity now, in the absence of a DOJ with integrity, and I think we all know how well congress has performed. All of the people on this board who believe the republicans will save the day and eventually restore our constitutional republic make me sick. Are they all blind? Politicians are politicians when it comes to the national level. The republicans have been part and parcel of the federal destruction of our liberties and freedom over the last 90 years. The republicans are the ones who gave us clinton and will give us gore in November because they refuse to stand up for the principles they claim to represent.
OK, all you Bush fans, go ahead and vote for him but if he gets elected and then we don't even take the smallest steps toward restoring our republic over the next 4 years then you need to ask yourself who really wasted their vote. At least those of us who vote for Keyes or Buchanan will be able to say we did everything we personally could to regain some recognition of our glorious constitution.
You call yourself Conservative and then go on talking about Plutocracy? This sounds like a Marxist class warfare talk.
This from a person who has voted Libertarian in every election since 1976 (the start of the Bush/Dole era in Republican politics).
Well at least you admit you've wasted your vote in every election for the past 24 years. Be proud, you've had ZERO influence on policy, ZERO influence on legislation passed, ZERO influence period. And this year, you'll vote for some libertarian goofball who has ZERO chance of getting elected again.
'This from a person who has voted Libertarian in every election since 1976'
I can see your point on Ford, Dole, and maybe even Goerge Bush, but you couldn't even vote for Ronald Reagan?
Wonder how a man could spend $70 - $80 million before the campaign is half over? Some of it goes to internet spinners whose job it is to hang aroung conservative and principled web sites supporting the status quo, and trying to destroy the credibility of those who speak up regarding the need for change.
You've destroyed your own credibilty by having admitted you voted for libertarian goofballs for the past 24 years. What more do I need to say ? Gee, with that attitude, I'm going to lose my job and those "Bush" spin dollars.
Part of discretion is knowing the wisdom of not flaunting ideas which will attract nothing but negative attention. I'm pretty low key about it, but, no - there is no way I would ever have voted for RR.
That said, I admit that he is an icon of American conservatism. But, IMO, that status was based on image rather than substance. That, in fact, is the great stain his legacy has left on the American political system. Lesser and more evil men at every level of government learned that the image one presents, how one makes the electorate "feel", is more important than the substance of one's agenda. In fact, that as long as one acts "presidential", a dastardly agenda can be pursued without repercussion.
I'm not going to get into an argument, here, about the substance of RR's presidency. I can't type that fast. But, don't attack me personally over it. Virtually all libertarians, no matter how conservative, would agree with me. We just think there are more important educational issues to discuss.
Just got your "page" this morning...and already another thread!
According to past election history:
Incumbent + economic prosperity = Incumbent's re-election.
Economic prosperity + Dem Incumbent + (GOP Challenger with "better" economic prosperity message - lack of moral criticism of Incumbent's unethical management) = Incumbent's re-election.
GOP Incumbent + "read my lips" = Dem Challenger's election.
(In this election, Incumbent = Al Gore.)
I compromised myself in 1996 by holding my nose (and subsequently breathing out my ears, as it has been put), as did many other Republicans, for all the good it did us.
And now I must listen (and inwardly laugh) as those party faithful castigate me for supporting a candidate in our party whom they declare is hardly a blip on the radar screen...yet the entire burden of the GOP loss in November will be "all my fault" if I don't march in lockstep behind their boy.
But...Alan Keyes is right. The GOP WILL NOT WIN on a message of "we've got better ideas for the economy than they have".
George H.W. Bush got dumped for "read my lips" despite his high ratings for the Persian Gulf War a short time before. At least, that's what we've heard. A little white lie (or, more appropriately, a weakening of the spine) gets a Republican President out of office, yet the GOP hadn't (and hasn't) the stomach to call our current President and Vice President to task for their corrupt activities while in office. Too "divisive". Too "mean-spirited".
Dole was on the GOP ticket in '96 with no moral message nor, for that matter, any clue as to the heart of the GOP message of honor and protection of innocent life. With a lukewarm message designed to somehow lure moderates, being neither hot nor cold, he was spewed out.
Now the GOP is once AGAIN going to anoint a candidate who is willing to compromise not only the spirit of Republican stalwartness in regards to issues of social and ethical importance in order to puff out the Big Tent (to the leftward side), but also, as a globalist, is all prepped to sell out our sovereignty and bow down to tyrants to promote a sinister vision of a "new world order".
Hardly a candidate who inspires waves of ecstatic, blind loyalty in this Freeper. Where George W. Bush goes, I can and will not follow.
And for those who decry me for "allowing Gore into office", may I just state that I see barely any difference between these two men who hold America in less esteem than some international vision? Two men willing to sell out for politics the life of the unborn? Two princelings from elitist backgrounds who feel somehow that the Presidency is a privilege due to them, no matter what truths, morals and ethics they need to toss by the wayside in order to get what they feel they "deserve"?
If (actually, "when") Al Gore becomes President, it will be because the Republican Party has been part of an attempt to eliminate the core principles of the party and the grassroots activists that made the party worth fighting for in the first place. If the principles are eliminated and my concern for the disintegration of the GOP scorned, then I'm obviously not wanted, and nobody belongs where they're not wanted. It would be the height of bad taste to stick around the party when I'm being invited to leave.
I will not permit the GOP to take my vote for granted ever again.
'If (actually, "when") Al Gore becomes President, it will be because the Republican Party has been part of an attempt to eliminate the core principles of the party and the grassroots activists that made the party worth fighting for in the first place.'
GW Bush will be President with or withot your help. You can say GW and Gore are the same all day because of a couple of your pet issues and other gross distoritions (like equating them on abortion?!), it won't change the fact they are vastly different on MOST issues, including several you think are important.
(like equating them on abortion?!)
Is it or is it not true that G.W. Bush is considering a pro-abortion running mate? Would this not seem to you like a man who provides lip-service rather than is actually pro-life in his heart? Would this not compromise the Republican Party's platform commitment to protecting the innocent unborn?
Is it or is it not true that G.W. Bush has stated he will not choose his Supreme Court nominees based on their commitment to protect the Constitution's guarantee of life, thereby throwing a sop to those who consider viewing the value of the unborn as being divisive?
Is it or is it not true that G.W. Bush views China as a "trading partner" to be glad-handed rather than as a ruthless leviathian who has made it perfectly clear what they think of America and how they intend to deal with America once we've been suckered into believing that they are our "friends in trade"?
Is it or is it not true that G.W. Bush was initiated into an organization while in Yale that is known - KNOWN - to be associated (in fact, part of) globalist organizations who believe the sovereignty of America is a stumbling block to a higher, nobler goal of conglomerate nations under the control of selected, "worthy" triumvirates?
If the sanctity of life, repelling tyranny, and holding back attempts to destroy America's power are merely "pet causes" in your book, I'd like to hear the vastness of your concerns that render mine so piddling in your eyes.
I won't vote for anyone who supports putting pot smokers or pot dealers in jail. Sorry, but it's as good a reason as I need. And as for voting for people who "don't have a chance", they will have a chance once people start voting for them. Duh.
I won't vote for anyone who supports putting pot smokers or pot dealers in jail. Sorry, but it's as good a litmus test as I need. And as for voting for people who "don't have a chance", they will have a chance once people start voting for them. Duh.
'Is it or is it not true that G.W. Bush is considering a pro-abortion running mate? Would this not seem to you like a man who provides lip-service rather than is actually pro-life in his heart? Would this not compromise the Republican Party's platform commitment to protecting the innocent unborn?'
Is he considering a pro-abortion running mate? All I have seen is the press beating this issue trying to make GW say something to piss off a portion of the Republican party. Bush's position is the same as Ronald Reagan had, if someone agrees with me 70% of the time, they are not the enemy. If you are only looking for people who support you 100% of the time, you are likely to be alone.
'Is it or is it not true that G.W. Bush has stated he will not choose his Supreme Court nominees based on their commitment to protect the Constitution's guarantee of life, thereby throwing a sop to those who consider viewing the value of the unborn as being divisive?'
That is a completely false charaterazation of what GW said. GW has clearly stated he will appoint people who will interpret the orginal meaning of the Constitution (like Scalia and Thomas). Gore has stated he will appoint pro-death justices who view the Constitution as toilet paper and can interpret it how ever they feel. Why do you so easily fall prey to the games the media plays with this litmus test bull? Do you enjoy being manipulated by the media? GW will appoint pro-life justices, Al Gore would NEVER EVER appoint one. GW Bush will not promote, fund, nationalize abortions, in fact, he signed numerous legislation that restricts abortions. Gore will do everything in his power to make abortions free and easy for everyone. I am sorry, but there is MEGA differences on abortioins between Al and GW, and to deny that is IMO intellectually dishonest.
'Is it or is it not true that G.W. Bush views China as a "trading partner" to be glad-handed rather than as a ruthless leviathian who has made it perfectly clear what they think of America and how they intend to deal with America once we've been suckered into believing that they are our "friends in trade"?
Although GW has made some minor strides on where he stands on China, I still disagree with him here. This is probably the biggest gripe I have with him, and it is a major issue.
'Is it or is it not true that G.W. Bush was initiated into an organization while in Yale that is known - KNOWN - to be associated (in fact, part of) globalist organizations who believe the sovereignty of America is a stumbling block to a higher, nobler goal of conglomerate nations under the control of selected, "worthy" triumvirates?
I been in a fraternity, and I don't neccessarily believe in everything in their rituals. We know the Clinton-Gore administration has ZERO respect for American Sovereignty. I have seen nothing from GW that would indicate he wishes to destroy America. GW wants to build up American's military again and provide a missile defense system. Why, to destroy American Sovereignty? I think not. You can believe in Free Trade and still respect American Sovereignty. Ronald Reagan had that perspective, and I think GW has a similar perspective. The fact that he may have been in the Skull-n-Bones society as a 20-year old youth has no bearing on anything.
'If the sanctity of life, repelling tyranny, and holding back attempts to destroy America's power are merely "pet causes" in your book, I'd like to hear the vastness of your concerns that render mine so piddling in your eyes.
GW Bush has the utmost respect for the sanctity of life, just refuses to fall for the traps laid by the media. GW wants to stregthen our military and build an missile defense system, hardly an indication he has no interest in repelling tyranny or destroying American Sovereignty. In fact, it is a strong indication GW is pro-American.
During the height of the media's McCain hype, i started to tell myself that perhaps I COULD vote for Bush if he choose the right VP. Now, as each day goes by, I realize I could never vote for this intellectual midget.
Yesterday, he said he respected Whitman's view that women should kill their babies using partial birth abortions.
Bush is a lost cause.
NEVER forget DAVID SOUTER!
No coincidence that "George W. Bush" is an anagram for "We go beg Rush"...
Mmmmmm....
Its also no coincidence that "GO PAT GO" is an anagram for "GOP GOAT"...
Those are the cold, hard raw facts. The next President will either be from the Democrat or Republican Party. The Democrats are united behind Gore. Any vote not for George Bush is, in one form or another a vote for Gore.
A history lesson. In 1992, Ross Periot caused Bill Clinton to be elected. By 1996, the American people were so in love and worshipped him so much they re-elected him president.Gore does not care how he gets elected so long as he gets elected.
In closing, I wish to echo your sentiments, a vote for any third party canidate is a vote for Gore. This is a fact, you do not have to like it, or believe it. If you do not believe me, just wait and see.
Arcane, this is Sport. I am not an internet spinner. I am just putting the cold ,hard, raw facts before you. You do not have to agree or like it. But the next elected president will either be Al Gore or George Bush. You have a decision to make; do you want Bush or Gore as president? If you want Gore, you have the option of voting for Gore or a third-party canidate, or even don't vote. If you do not want Gore as president your options are somewhat limited to voting for Bush. As it stands at this time and for the foreseeable future, George Bush and George Bush only can beat Gore in November.
I close with this: Do you remember 1992 and Ross Periot and the result?
Have you read this thread about Shadow Government? It should be required reading for American history.
Some excerpts;
Thomas Jefferson issued this warning:
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
In 1792, contrary to Jefferson's warning, Alexander Hamilton established a 20 year charter with the Bank of England. When the renewal was denied in 1812, war broke out again. The charter was renewed in 1816. In 1833, President Andrew Jackson removed all moneys from this chartered bank and placed them into state banks. Mexico invaded Texas in 1836 after the renewal was again denied. Some historians say these wars were attempts by the European banking monopolies to disrupt and control America's economy. The Civil War continued this pattern.
Abraham Lincoln said:
"The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, (and) more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces, as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe...corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed."
By the end of the 19th Century, American industrialists and bankers, through the Industrial Revolution, had achieved great wealth. An excellent account of this is Matthew Josephson's 1934 book, entitled "The Robber Barons; the Great American Capitalists 1861-1901~(by Matthew Josephson, Harcourt, Brace and Co. New York 1934; available secondary market).
The industrialists were known as "Big Business" and the Wall Street bankers as the "Money Trust". The most prominent of these was banker J.P. Morgan.
It was Morgan, working with the European banking dynasties, who created the "Financial Panic of 1907". This was an effort to manipulate Congress to approve of a central bank.
Click on the above link for the whole story.
Did you see my post #39 to you?
You stated......."You have a decision to make; do you want Bush or Gore as president?"
The answer is NO!! A vote for either one is a vote for the Shadow Government(see post#57) and One World Government.
A vote for BUSH is a vote for VICTORY and a vote against the democratic agenda.
The GOP platform, in this case consistent with the Tenth Amendment, calls for the elimination of the federal department of Education. Bush, Gore, and Clinton all favor keeping it.
In this case, a vote for Bush is a vote for the Democratic agenda.
You're right. Algore may be unthinkable but the globalist political agenda of NWO Bush Jr. is as unendorseable.
I agree.
Your suggestion is noted.
I BEG YOUR PARDON? I am a conservative with principles and I have every damn right to be here as YOU! How dare you insult me and other Bush supporters. What hateful, bitter and arrogant crap!
You haven't been here long enough to realize what a fun place this really is.
See, people like that come on here and post this charming pieces, waiting for us to take the bait. Unfortunately, a lot of times we do.
You have to understand, they live for this. This is their lives. Take a look at their candidates. What else do they have to do.
BTW, I'm glad to see you're no shrinking violet.....LOL.
Your right, I fell for the bait. And your correct, I am no shrinking violet, that is for sure. I am just thankful they are in the minority.
GO BUSH GO
You'll eventually learn.............heck, what am I saying? I take the bait ALL the time.......LOL.
They seem to come in "waves." Wait till you meet the Buchanan Brigade.
And now I must listen (and inwardly laugh) as those party faithful castigate me for supporting a candidate in our party whom they declare is hardly a blip on the radar screen...yet the entire burden of the GOP loss in November will be "all my fault" if I don't march in lockstep behind their boy.
John Dougherty had a good commentary about this:
I have received lots of e-mail lately from some diehard Republican readers, and that's great -- if I'm anything, I'm inclusive when it comes to points of view.
But I gotta tell you -- some of this e-mail is confusing to me, because it seeks to blame those of us who are not duped by somebody like "Dubya" on the loss of an election that hasn't even been held yet.
...
To me, a former Republican, the GOP is more guilty of abandoning principle than Democrats; the latter has always been professedly liberal, statist and socialist. The former, however, pays lip service to constitutional liberty and smaller government but casts ballots on Capitol Hill that serve their own interests as well.
...
If Bush loses the election, why does it have to be because core conservatives "abandoned" him, as one letter to the editor charges? Why can't it be because he abandoned core conservatives, didn't articulate his message well and didn't convince them he was worth voting for? Is this how Republicans assuage their consciences -- by blaming their losses on somebody else? Isn't that what Democrats do?
I refuse to take the heat for G.W. Bush's lukewarm conservatism. That's his fault, not mine. And I refuse to vote for "the lessor of two evils" because that doesn't change the fact that I'm still voting for one of those "evils."
These and many other good points are online at Republicans, please stop whining about your losses.
Dole was on the GOP ticket in '96 with no moral message nor, for that matter, any clue as to the heart of the GOP message of honor and protection of innocent life. With a lukewarm message designed to somehow lure moderates, being neither hot nor cold, he was spewed out.
EXCELLENT analysis, Mercuria!
bump
You repeat the LIBERAL mantra about Reagan being symbolism over substance. Your OPINION is, of course, wrong. It was the left that could not believe that someone so conservative could actually be elected, so they put forth the crap that Reagan was smoke and mirrors. Reagan then went on to pull us out of the TRUE worst economy in 50 years (Carter Adminstration....21% interest rates, 12% unemployment, 11% inflation, gas lines, deep recession). After this the Gipper won the cold war (the leaders of the Evil Empire said he did, so don't try crank up the B.S. that Reagan had little to do with it). Reagan was real, and he put his country before party or personal gain. Mr. Sobran puts party before country, (won't vote for Bush even thought it means that a Gore Supreme Court will kill any change that ANY conservative elected in the next thirty years would try to enact.) Mr. Sobran, while proclaiming a devotion to principal, in fact pledges to stand on the shore with his small band of "enlightened keepers of the TRUE faith" while the ship that they helped torpedo by helping Gore get elected, sinks.
Here are some more acurate titles for this Sobran Self Promotion: "How I Will Put My Party Before My Country and Help Elect Gore." or "We Are The True Enlightened Conservatives And To Prove It, We Will Allow Al Gore to Stack The Courts So That The End of The American Experience Will Be Neigh"
...small band of "enlightened keepers of the TRUE faith"
I've always taken a great deal from being a principled person. You're right, we are small in number, but influential among our peers.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinion, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation." --Oscar Wilde
Besides Christ, my all time hero is Diogenes. He wouldn't have been too impressed with Wobbly ... or his bootlickers.
Wh I can't vote for Gore...he is a fraud! He can morph into a preacher, Ronald Reagan, and an out doorsman with the help of millions of gallons of water and a canoe...blah
I see another GOP supporter that is preaching to the patriots... ever thought of what would have become of this country if the founders had "played the odds" and stayed home?
Want votes? Meet issues, and get them. Del had a very good post on this; try reading it.
Your point is partially, IMO, true "Take a look at their candidates"- while we are busy advancing patriotic America first causes, we don't have time to sell out the country to a bunch of stock chaisng NWO parasites.
Gotta get our priorities straight here... we just refuse to see that we are in a new day where nations are simply map constructions, and those nasty old ideas like patriotism and nationalism- well, we can't have that anymore. Such ignorance is, it seems, intolerable to the GOP and their, IMO, NWO bootlicking squad.
I guess we need to see the essential goodness of your candidate, and how well he would measure up to the founding fathers, like say, another George W. The figure "one centimeter" enters my mind...so take that in your, IMO,globalist pipe and smoke it.
I'm perfectly happy with MY candidate; I don't expect him to be Jesus Christ reborn; I don't expect to agree with every single one of his policies.
I do expect to have a say in the coming years in this country, which is more than you can say.
Want votes? Meet issues, and get them.
I certainly understand that and you are most certainly correct. The reason these third-party fringe candidates don't get the votes is because they don't have issues that resonate with a lot of voters.
I will vote for Bush because he is a conservative that I agree with for the most part, but not entirely. I am also a realist that can look at the numbers and see the two real electable candidates. Bush is a conservative, maybe not as conservative as some, but he is also electable. I like the odds of Bush beating Gore far better than any other third party candidate. I repsect others who support their candidates and strive for change. I just don't see it happening this election cycle. I just hope we can ban together to keep Gore out of the WH. Then the other parties can start planning for the change they so desire. Now I see that as a real possiblilty in 2004-08, not 2000.
GO BUSH GO!
You must want four more years of clintin/bore. They will kill more babies even after they are born. Prople too old they will kill them to and they will turn all children in gays. You property will become the person's who doesn't have any. You will have no guns to protect you when they come to take you to the get it right camp. You will become who they want you to be. Oh yea and don't forget they will give your hard earned money to someone who deserves it more than you. Yep that is some world you are going to help them make.
A lot of people are going to stand on principal and not vote. Well in the 92 election i voted for Perot on principal and look what it got us. You people want to go for 4 more years of the garbage we have. Well do me a favor go change registration to the democrats and go help them man the phones. Years down the road you will curse they day you let gore get in and you will get what you deserve.
Their attitude is a lot like Pat's. If I can't win then I'll make sure no one wins.
Their attitude is a lot like Pat's. If I can't win then I'll make sure no one wins.
The attitude of a bitter, resentful spoiler...putting petty revengful motives ahead of the best interests of his country.
Wow, a real patriot!
Gee, CWO... I just can't remember any Presidential election where nobody won... can you enlighten me on that? Or is it that you mean to say "OUR candidate is the only one worthy of support?"
Of course, it is possible to show an election that had to be resolved in congress... but I doubt you meant that. Now, try to repeat after me; the way to get votes is to meet issues.
Wow, I guess we know who is putting true patriotism first- the great shrub, of free trade with china fame... yes, indeed, stand for that patriotism! (Just don't tell the founders- if they were alive, they might not understand)
Now, try to repeat after me; the way to get votes is to meet issues.
Now, repeat after me; "If I believe what I post, then I must believe that the reason Buchanan has consistently lost and gotten single digit vote percentages is that there are not enough people who agree with him on his issues."
Somehow I feel this merits a "duh".
His numbers are going up... and win or lose, we will build an opposition party to globalism, IMO. If you think that a primary run is the same as a candidacy in terms of exposure, you may be in for a surprise.
Buchanan can, IMO, debate and speak RINGS around Dubya..and Gore, too. If your party doesn't have, IMO, someone capable of independent thought on that stage- like Keyes- I think it will be a rout. Light a candle, truth... and pray that Pat does not get that 15 percent. If he does, IMO, there will be a "compassionate conservative" who will be in need of compassion.
Pat may not win this time, but he is the best possible man to build the movement, IMO. And that is what counts with me- not which NWO , IMO, hugger wins. Buchanan will start a march to America first, and the roots of that go back a LONG way... all the way back to the Founding of America. Winning the Presidential election is only the tip of the iceberg.
If you doubt that- and think this is only about the Presidential election for 2000- then consider this:
We don't have to win to get our message across. The congress will figure it out real well, and will, IMO, remember it come the next trade bill that sells out our soveriegnty and our working people.
When NAFTA expansion was halted, we were, IMO, at the forefront. And that was without the exposure a candidates debate gives. If Pat can deliver his economic nationalist message in the debates, the NWO is, IMO, quite likely to be in big trouble.
Considering that they even back free trade with dollar an hour countries, they have, IMO, NO leg to stand on in a popular debate. The American people have more common sense than they are being given credit for.
This movement is just beginning to take hold, and unlike the elites, the man on the street is not internationalist, IMO. And, I might add, he doesn't want his kids in the military going to fight the NWO's brushfire wars. And Pat is the guy who spoke against Kosovo. BTW, have you checked the news from that region? It isn't looking too good for the internationalists...
If he realizes he can win, he will try to do so. Sooner or later, all the closed factories, the lost hopes, the broken dreams of so many working folks will come back to haunt the NWO free traders, IMO. It's just a matter of time.
NWO Stock chasers have the power, but not the numbers. And we will rally those who are being shafted by them. Just keep hammering that free trade drum, and watch what happens.
The only "duh" here is the one that may well be issuing from your candidate, when Pat rips into him on trade. When the american people realize they actually do have a choice, they might well go with the maverick. Win or lose, its going to be a long day for the NWO, and its cheerleaders.
If Pat can deliver his economic nationalist message in the debates, the NWO is, IMO, quite likely to be in big trouble.
Many of the voting public have heard Pat's nationalist economic message and a lot of them believe that global "free" trade is a modern economic reality, and that isolationalism is an archaic concept of the past. Many believe you can't put the genie back in the bottle...modern economies are so interconected, for better or worse.
Sure, Pat will get some percentage of the union vote who are afraid that their jobs will go overseas, but the number of consumers who like paying $8 for some item made in China, rather than $32 for the same item made by some overpaid union assembly line worker, are far greater.
Having Pat preach his message again is not going to create this huge uprising you foretell. Look how many of the stupid sheeple voted for Clinton and favor Gore. That's reality!!
If the sanctity of life, repelling tyranny, and holding back attempts to destroy America's power are merely "pet causes" in your book, I'd like to hear the vastness of your concerns that render mine so piddling in your eyes.
The liberal media and many Republican talking heads, Bush included, are trying to portray these as non-issues. Those who support Bush or Gore perpetuate such propaganda.
That is a completely false charaterazation of what GW said. GW has clearly stated he will appoint people who will interpret the orginal meaning of the Constitution (like Scalia and Thomas).
Bush has repeatedly called for unconstitutional policies, particularly in education.
Since Bush is advocating ideas contrary to the Constitution, his statement about appointing strict constructionists is moot.
Bush's repeated failure to commit to appointing pro-life judges shows that he can't be trusted to make only pro-abortion appointments in the past, especially since he has put a pro-abortion Democrat over the Texas Department of Health and Human Services.
Now, as each day goes by, I realize I could never vote for this intellectual midget.
Yesterday, he said he respected Whitman's view that women should kill their babies using partial birth abortions.
NEVER forget DAVID SOUTER!
Bush's words were actually, "I agree with her views," if I am not mistaken. I don't see how he could be pro-life and say that, knowing full well Christy Whitman's pro-abortion stand. This is clearly another indication that the right to life is not important to him. His past pro-abortion cabinet appointment in the Texas administration and his opposition to the Lambert Resolution shows that Bush will support the pro-abortion agenda when politically convenient.
bump
Both Bush and Gore are campaigning against the Constitution. Given the socialism, globalism, and tax burden that Bush and Gore are offering, such a chance is worth fighting for.
Thanks for the tag. I agree with you entire post although this particularly stands out to me.
I will not permit the GOP to take my vote for granted ever again.
Hear! Hear!! I second that. I don't think the rino party has any idea just how many people feel the same way, to their disadvantage.
Well in the 92 election i voted for Perot on principal and look what it got us.
So, if at first you don't succeed --- QUIT. Then join the crowd and follow, follow, follow! f-aaa-llow! There must have been strong reasons for you to have voted as you did in 92, have those reasons gone away??? or-- are they stronger than ever???? Did you find it too difficult to stick by your principles? Never fear there are a lot of others in that boat with you.
b
Both Bush and Gore are campaigning against the Constitution. Given the socialism, globalism, and tax burden that Bush and Gore are offering, such a chance is worth fighting for.
Thanks for the tag.
I agree with you entire post although this particularly stands out to me.
Thanks!
bump
"I agree with her views," if I am not mistaken.
Either mistaken or lying. He said he respected her views.
As governor he accepted Goals 2000 funds for his state, going against the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution and the GOP platform which rejects federal involvement in education.
Once again you keep repeating the same old crap...here is the proof...according to the TEA
"Texas' support for Goals 2000 is grounded in sections 318 and 319 of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, which prohibit federal mandates, direction, and control, and affirm state and local government control of education."
Sections 318 and 319 state:
"The Congress agrees and reaffirms that the responsibility for control of education is reserved to the States and local school systems and other instrumentalities of the States and that no action shall be taken under the provisions of this Act by the Federal Government which would, directly or indirectly, impose standards or requirements of any kind through the promulgation of rules, regulations, provision of financial assistance and otherwise, which would reduce, modify, or undercut State and local responsibility for control of education.
"Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize an officer or employee of the Federal Government to mandate, direct, or control a State, local educational agency, or school's curriculum, program of instruction, or allocation of State or local resources or mandate a State or any subdivision thereof to spend any funds or incur any costs not paid for under this Act."
This is a result of Texas being involved in the Ed-Flex Program
. So no...it is not in violation of the Constitution.
Going back to the Bush administration, Phillips stood for the right to life, testifying before the Senate about David Souter's pro-abortion record.
So Howard Who? did one thing and you call that a record? Ha ha ha ha ha.....let's compare it to George's record....
He has the distinguished honor of being the only Presidential candidate to have his own bash page on the National Abortion and Reproductive Right Action League:
Articles here on FR that addressed this issue:
"Bush's views have been consistently pro-life. He favors, parental-consent laws, a ban on partial-birth abortion, and ultimately a constitutional amendment." Source:
Mr. Right: The conservative case for George W.
"George W. Bush is fervently anti-choice," continued Michelman. "But on the campaign trail, Bush strikes a different pose portraying himself as no threat to a woman's right to choose. But we know George W. Bush. We know his views and we know his record. We know the myriad of individuals and groups just waiting for the opportunity an anti-choice president presents. And we know the tremendous power of the office he seeks, not the least of which is the power to nominate new Supreme Court Justices." -- Statement by Kate Michelman, NARAL President
Source: NARAL Releases New TV Ad on Bush and Supreme Court
"George W. Bush is attempting to portray himself as a centrist on the issue of abortion while on the Presidential campaign trail, but his fervent opposition to a woman's right to choose and his record as Governor of Texas contrast starkly with his centrist image. In fact, a National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL) analysis of 1999 state legislative activity on abortion and reproductive rights shows that, under Bush's leadership, the Texas state legislature passed more anti-choice bills in 1999 than any other state.
NARAL: Bush's Actions Contrast With His Image on Abortion
"George W. Bush's anti-choice stance was on full display today before members of the Christian Coalition. If there was any doubt about Governor Bush's position on this crucial issue, that doubt faded when he enthusiastically told the solidly anti-choice audience, "Every child born and unborn must be protected by law and welcomed into life."
"George W. Bush has been attempting to portray himself as a moderate on this issue separate and distinct from the other solidly anti-choice GOP candidates. But his appearance today before one of the nation's most virulently anti-choice organizations reveals George W. Bush for who he really is - an anti-choice Presidential candidate bent on dismantling a woman's right to choose, tearing down the protections of Roe, and relegating women once again to second-class citizenship. "Bush proved today that there is no substantive difference between his views and those of Gary Bauer, Steve Forbes or Pat Buchanan when it comes to taking away a woman's right to choose." -- Kate Michelman, President of NARAL
Source: Bush's Anti-Choice Stance On Full Display Today
"By signing in law SB 30, the Parental Notification Act, Governor George W. Bush gave Texas its greatest pro-life victory in the 26 years since the tragic Roe v. Wade decision.
This new law, which goes into effect on January 1, 2000, restores rights to parents and protects their minor daughters. The law requires a physician to notify parents before performing an abortion on their minor daughter. The only exceptions are medical emergencies, which are strictly defined, and a federal court-required judicial bypass.
States with similar laws have experienced sharp drops in the number of both abortions and pregnancies to minors. In Texas, we can expect a decline of more than 1,000 abortions and 5,000 pregnancies per year.
Also of primary importance, was support that Governor Bush and Lieutenant Governor Rick Perry gave. Both made it clear that parental notification was among their top priorities. Both lobbied hard to ensure the passage of SB 30.
Texas Families Win! Pro-lifers band together for Parental Notification
June 10 - Just three days ago, pro-life Texas Gov. George W. Bush signed into law parental notification legislation that is virtually identical to a parental notification law that pro-life Florida Gov. Jeb Bush is scheduled to sign into law as NRL News goes to press.
Both laws overcame enormous obstacles, beginning with a barrage of pro-abortion parliamentary trickery and the brevity of the legislative session in both states.
At a bill-signing ceremony June 7, George W. Bush expressed his desire for an America where "unborn children are welcome in life and protected by law."
Gov. Bush declared that the new law "makes a simple, urgent point: when a child is in crisis, parents should have a role and a voice. They should be the first to help, not the last to know." The law, Bush said, "both respects families and protects life."
In his remarks Gov. Bush also "asked state lawmakers to push for other antiabortion measures, including promoting adoption, opposing public funding of abortions, ending partial-birth abortion, and promoting abstinence among children," according to the Associated Press.
"It is a new day for Right to Life in Texas," said Joseph Graham, Ph.D., president of Texas Right to Life. "We have been working to pass meaningful pro-life legislation since 1973."
Dr. Graham said parental notification promotes a number of important goals. "It establishes protection for the unborn; by bringing in their parents, the law will help pregnant teens make a decision about something that will have an impact on them the rest of their lives," he told NRL News.
NRLC Associate Executive Director Darla St. Martin strongly agreed. "Gov. George W. Bush's strong pro-life leadership was critical in passing this legislation over pro-abortion opposition," she said. "Parents owe a debt of gratitude to Gov. Bush, the bill's sponsors, the Texas legislature, and the coalition of pro-life groups, including Texas Right to Life, who worked so hard for this protective legislation."
Mrs. St. Martin added, "Experience shows that notification laws save babies' lives and strengthen the bonds between teenage daughters and their parents."
Mary Spaulding Balch, NRLC's state legislative director, told NRL News that the victories in Texas and Florida were "just short of miraculous."
"Historically, again and again pro-life legislation has been sabotaged by a determined pro-abortion minority using arcane parliamentary tricks," she said. "That happened in Texas in 1997 when at the last minute a pro-abortion state representative used a 'point of order' to kill a parental notification law."
Not so in 1999. (Texas's legislature meets only every other year for 140 days.) Despite a flurry of maneuvers that to the very end of the session threatened to either kill the bill altogether or produce a deeply flawed version, a strong parental notification measure emerged.
For instance, after losing the vote that would have allowed other relatives to be notified as well as a parent, one pro-abortionist offered an amendment that would have allowed minors to notify a clergyman. But Rep. Arlene Wohlgemuth blasted the amendment, explaining that anyone can easily become "clergy."
"To prove her point, she logged on to a Web site while the House was in session and became a minister of the Universal Life Church," the American-Statesman reported.
Instead the strong new Texas law obligates abortionists to inform a parent of an unmarried girl under 18 by phone or registered mail 48 hours in advance. As required by a string of U.S. Supreme Court decisions, the law provides a judicial bypass, whereby the minor may petition a judge to be given an abortion without notifying her parents. Over and over the High Court has shot down laws which do not include such a bypass mechanism.
Dr. Graham attended the bill signing in Dallas. Looking back at the session just completed, he told NRL News that "Gov. Bush showed himself to be an extremely effective leader on the pro-life issue." Graham said Bush made it abundantly clear that he wanted pro-life legislation throughout the session and at the May 15 Texas RTL fundraising luncheon that the governor attended.
"He went out of his way to make the point that the abortion issue is very dear to him and close to his heart," Graham said. The bill was stuck in a particular house committee, Graham said, and Bush was key to getting the legislation unbottled and on to the floor of the house.
Texas Has a New "Abandoned Baby" Bill - Believed to be the first such legislation in the nation, a new Texas law allows new mothers, whose desperation may have otherwise led to a child's death, to leave babies less than 30 days old in the care of designated agencies, to do so anonymously and without threat of prosecution. The law amends Texas' Family Code, allowing licensed emergency medical service providers to take possession, without a court order, of a child 30 days old or younger when the parent voluntarily delivers the child to the agency and expresses no intent to return for the child.
The law was initiated by a Fort Worth pediatrician, Dr. John Richardson, who for 30 years has cared for all the infants born at the Edna Gladney Home. Dr. Richardson said he had been thinking about the problem of baby abandonment for years. "These girls need to know they can take the sweet child someplace and it will be loved and cared for," Richardson said. "This will save the baby's life and allow the mother to perhaps have a life of her own." (Texas Catholic, 9/17/99)
Governor George Bush signed the bill into law in June and we commend him for doing so. This is the first we have heard of it.
Republican National Committee for Life
AUSTIN -- Governor George W. Bush today filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief in Texas' Third Court of Appeals today shortly before the Court heard arguments in a lawsuit in which six abortion providers are suing the State for tax funding for elective abortions. Bush's brief opposes a court mandate to fund elective abortions. "We applaud Governor Bush for his principled stand against forcing taxpayers to reimburse abortion providers," said Joe Pojman, Ph.D., executive director of Greater Austin Right to Life.
Source: Greater Austin Right to Life
The NARAL Foundation released its mid-year analysis of state legislative activity on reproductive rights, revealing that the Texas Legislature, led by GOP frontrunner George W. Bush, enacted more anti-choice laws than any other state in the country thus far in 1999. The analysis showed that the Texas Legislature, which passed seven anti-choice bills in the 1999 session alone, tops a list of the country's most actively anti-choice state legislatures that includes Virginia, Arizona, Iowa, and Florida. NARAL President Kate Michelman said, "George W. Bush and the Texas Legislature have waged a relentless assault on the freedom to choose, stripping away women's reproductive freedom and curtailing their options at virtually every turn. Yet as a candidate, Bush adopts a centrist facade, insisting he is no threat to the freedom to choose."
"Questions raised about Texas Governor George W. Bush by national Pro-Life leaders in regard to the sincerity of his commitment to the Pro-Life cause have a familiar ring. The same questions were raised early in the campaigns of Ronald Reagan and of the other George Bush. Both became heroes of the Pro-Life movement upon election.
When national columnists began to speculate that George W. Bush would distance himself from Pro-Lifers and Christian conservatives in order to advance his Presidential aspirations, Governor Bush called a meeting of Pro-Life leaders last year to announce that such a move was furthest from his intention precisely because his heart is with the Pro-Life cause.
But actions speak louder than words. At the end of the last session of the Texas Legislature [1998], Governor Bush stood against powerful forces in the state and vetoed legislation that would have allowed a physician to deny life-saving treatment to a patient requesting it - even if the patient's death should result. This veto action was taken at the specific request of the Texas Right to Life Committee.
In the same session, Governor Bush aggressively lobbied for the passage of substantial Pro-Life legislation. His efforts failed because there was simply not enough Pro-Life support in the seated legislature. The Governor is currently advocating parental consent legislation and is committed to working actively for passage of all Pro-Life bills in the upcoming 76TH Texas Legislative session next January [1999]. Governor Bush refers to himself as the most Pro-Life Governor the state of Texas has ever had. His words and actions give ringing proof of the claim. And he sure beats Ann Richards.
Joseph M. Graham, Ph.D.
The Texas Right to Life Committee, Inc., President
Source: Texas Governor George Bush and Pro-Life
Now THAT'S a pro-life record! And just let me add...
New Hampshire, June 14th, 1999 - Texas Governor George W. Bush held a press conference that both confounded the liberal news media and caused him to draw fire from openly Pro-life Conservative Presidential Candidates.
The question was about the abortion 'litmus test' and potential Supreme Court nominations. W's answer, ''There will be no litmus tests, except for whether or not the judges will strictly interpret the Constitution." The liberal news media saw this answer as a hopeful sign that W is a social 'moderate' on the issue of abortion. Pro-life leaders feared the liberal news media may be right. There is, of course, a different way to look at his answer.
W's demeanor during the news conference was one of confidence and an utter determination to win the election. One could not watch the event without coming away with the belief that "This man was playing to win."
If winning is what W is about, then it is clear that he has done his homework. W apparently knows the tactics of the liberal news media better than they do. With this knowledge he has found a way beat them at their own game. He is defining himself. He is representing himself on his own terms. He is not going to allow himself to become a P.R. casualty like many Republican leaders who have gone before him. This is what Republicans have been wanting for years. Now that they have it, they don't know if they should embrace W or condemn him.
Remember, W intends to win. That means he is not going to use the same losing tactics that pro-life Conservatives have used for the past 30 years. He has found a different tactic and has the confidence to use it. His answer kept him from getting bogged down on the issue of pro-choice vs. pro-life. This kept him from looking like a preacher who plans to turn America into a religious theocracy. (This is the caricature that would be crafted for him by the media if he fell into this trap) At the same time, his answer should scare extremist feminist abortionists. If W keeps his word then abortion on demand is in serious danger of becoming extinct. W said he would appoint judges who "strictly interpret the Constitution." This is an amazingly well thought out answer. The liberals in their arrogant demogogery, have forgotten that the Constitution does not give women the right to kill their unborn children. A 'strict' interpretation of the Constitution would require that Roe V. Wade be overturned because it was legislation disguised as a Supreme Court ruling.
W has shown that Republicans can maintain the 'moral high ground' and still be electable. Conservatives need to pay attention to what this man is doing. It is shrewd.
I love that "overpaid assembly line worker" bit- keep shouting that to the Heavens, if you like! I will show that to every CONSERVATIVE auto worker I can find- and you will soon see, there are plenty of them.
So, what wage should those smelly assembly line workers make? Minimum wage? Or would you rather see us go the way of the country your candidate wants free trade with- China? Yes, indeed, lets see you sell the idea of 50 cents an hour in this country!
"respected" it is. Thanks.
Either Bush is ignorant of Whitman's pro-infanticide position, or he thinks that it is worth ignoring.
Is it or is it not true that G.W. Bush is considering a pro-abortion running mate? Would this not seem to you like a man who provides lip-service rather than is actually pro-life in his heart? Would this not compromise the Republican Party's platform commitment to protecting the innocent unborn?
First of all, any choice of VP is still purely speculation...so your question is moot...secondly, I posted GWB's record above to the Eaglet, check it out. He is actually pro-life to the core...he walks the walk when others just talk the talk. He wants the platform to remain the same.
Is it or is it not true that G.W. Bush has stated he will not choose his Supreme Court nominees based on their commitment to protect the Constitution's guarantee of life, thereby throwing a sop to those who consider viewing the value of the unborn as being divisive?
This is NOT true...although Bush stated that he would appoint strict constitutionalists...GWB knows that abortion IS unconstitutional...he is just not going to fall into the media trap that many of his Pubbies predecessors did...
New Hampshire, June 14th, 1999 - Texas Governor George W. Bush held a press conference that both confounded the liberal news media and caused him to draw fire from openly Pro-life Conservative Presidential Candidates.
The question was about the abortion 'litmus test' and potential Supreme Court nominations. W's answer, ''There will be no litmus tests, except for whether or not the judges will strictly interpret the Constitution." The liberal news media saw this answer as a hopeful sign that W is a social 'moderate' on the issue of abortion. Pro-life leaders feared the liberal news media may be right. There is, of course, a different way to look at his answer.
W's demeanor during the news conference was one of confidence and an utter determination to win the election. One could not watch the event without coming away with the belief that "This man was playing to win."
If winning is what W is about, then it is clear that he has done his homework. W apparently knows the tactics of the liberal news media better than they do. With this knowledge he has found a way beat them at their own game. He is defining himself. He is representing himself on his own terms. He is not going to allow himself to become a P.R. casualty like many Republican leaders who have gone before him. This is what Republicans have been wanting for years. Now that they have it, they don't know if they should embrace W or condemn him.
Remember, W intends to win. That means he is not going to use the same losing tactics that pro-life Conservatives have used for the past 30 years. He has found a different tactic and has the confidence to use it. His answer kept him from getting bogged down on the issue of pro-choice vs. pro-life. This kept him from looking like a preacher who plans to turn America into a religious theocracy. (This is the caricature that would be crafted for him by the media if he fell into this trap) At the same time, his answer should scare extremist feminist abortionists.
If W keeps his word then abortion on demand is in serious danger of becoming extinct. W said he would appoint judges who "strictly interpret the Constitution." This is an amazingly well thought out answer. The liberals in their arrogant demogogery, have forgotten that the Constitution does not give women the right to kill their unborn children. A 'strict' interpretation of the Constitution would require that Roe V. Wade be overturned because it was legislation disguised as a Supreme Court ruling.
W has shown that Republicans can maintain the 'moral high ground' and still be electable. Conservatives need to pay attention to what this man is doing. It is shrewd.
Is it or is it not true that G.W. Bush views China as a "trading partner" to be glad-handed rather than as a ruthless leviathian who has made it perfectly clear what they think of America and how they intend to deal with America once we've been suckered into believing that they are our "friends in trade"?
That is also NOT true...
"I think the president has made a mistake of calling China a strategic partner. I think he sent bad signals to China that says, well, if you decide to move aggressively against Taiwan, we won't act, necessarily. I think the next president needs to hold -- needs to understand that China, while we can find some areas of agreement such as -- such as opening their markets, that they need to be viewed as a competitor, and a strategic competitor. And we need to be tough and firm. And we need to be very resolute about our position when it comes to Taiwan.
Taiwan Relations: The Candidates Speak Out
"Today's report shines a glaring light on the current administration's failed policies toward China. Presented with detailed information about China's espionage, this administration apparently did not take it seriously, did not react properly and it is still trying to minimize the scope and extent of the damage done. I trust that Congress will investigate to determine what went wrong and why, and I expect that our government will take immediate action to protect sensitive American technology.
China's military ambitions and the means China has used to realize them have major implications for United States policy. The current administration calls China a "strategic partner." China is not America's strategic partner. China is a competitor, a competitor which does not share our values but now, unfortunately, shares many of our nuclear secrets. There are some areas of mutual benefit [but] we must deal with China in a firm and consistent manner." -- GW Bush -- Source: GeorgeWBush.com/News/"Cox Report"
"I think if we turn our back on China and isolate China things will get worse. Imagine if the Internet took hold in China. Imagine how freedom would spread. Our greatest export to the world has been, is and always will be the incredible freedom we understand in America. And that's why it's important for us to trade with China to encourage the growth of an entrepreneurial class. It gets that taste of freedom. It gets that breath of freedom in the marketplace." -- Source: Phoenix Arizona GOP Debate Dec 7, 1999
Trade will help expand the private sector in China. Trade will open a window to the free world for the people of China. But there is a difference between selling food and selling technology that could be used against America and our allies. China's growing military capabilities present serious challenges for the United States. The Cox report should prompt a full and serious review of export controls, to make certain that America's technology is not arming China's military. -- Source: GeorgeWBush.com/News/ "Cox Report" May 25, 1999
[I don't] follow the policies of Clinton-Gore. They believe in what's called a strategic partnership. I believe in redefining the relationship to one of competitor. But competitors can find common ground. It's in our best interests to sell to the Chinese, and to make sure that the entrepreneurial class in China flourishes. If we make China make an enemy, they'll end up being an enemy. If we trade with China, and trade with the entrepreneurial class, and give people a taste of freedom, I think you'll be amazed at how soon democracy will come. -- Source: Phoenix Arizona GOP Debate Dec 7, 1999
Is it or is it not true that G.W. Bush was initiated into an organization while in Yale that is known - KNOWN - to be associated (in fact, part of) globalist organizations who believe the sovereignty of America is a stumbling block to a higher, nobler goal of conglomerate nations under the control of selected, "worthy" triumvirates?
He was "tapped" as a "legacy", was forced into joining by his dad, but did not participate in their activities...so that makes your argument moot again...
Minutaglio quotes Robert Reisner, a Deke brother of George W.'s, recalling that on the eve of Yale's "Tap Night," George W. told him that he was thinking seriously about rejecting the expected invitation to join Bones and instead joining a less elite (and, from the sound of its name, more party-hearty) secret society called "Gin & Tonic." But George W. ended up choosing Skull & Bones over Gin & Tonic after all. According to an unconfirmed story that circulated around campus, Minutaglio writes,
At 8 p.m. on Tap Night, at the moment the bells were tolling in Harkness Tower, there was a knock on George W.'s door at his room in Davenport. When it opened up, his father, the U.S. congressman, was standing outside, asking that his first son do the right thing and join Skull and Bones--become a Good Man. [Bones literature refers incessantly to becoming a "good man."]
"And though he joined Skull & Bones, he whiled away his nights with a much less refined group, the hard-drinking frat brothers of DKE...In today's politics, the son's checkered résumé signifies success. By choosing DKE over Skull & Bones, drinking over studying, baseball over the United Nations, George W. compiled a record that suits our populist age...George W. Bush jokes that his father's idea of a perfect son is Al Gore Jr. This may be America's choice in 2000: the George W. Bush who isn't George H.W. Bush, or the Al Gore who is.
And So's Your Old Man Why isn't George W. more like his dad?
Geez...you really gotta quit listening to the some of the kooks that end up on this site, LOL!
As governor he accepted Goals 2000 funds for his state, going against the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution and the GOP platform which rejects federal involvement in education.
< snip >
. So no...it is not in violation of the Constitution.
Ravingnutter, the TEA citation you posted above says ignores the Tenth Amendment's prohibition of Congress exercising power in any matter not authorized in the Constitution.
The Federal Department of Education is a violation of the Constitution, and the GOP platform calls for its elimination. Bush is opposing his own party and the U.S. Constitution in this matter.
His past pro-abortion cabinet appointment in the Texas administration and his opposition to the Lambert Resolution shows that Bush will support the pro-abortion agenda when politically convenient.
One appointment that I have never been able to confirm was pro-abortion or pro-life after doing an exhaustive search. You took the word of Donna Ballard, a confirmed Bush hater on this. I know your sources of info...and none of them are credible.
On the Lambert Resolution...I have also explained this to you before...it would have ended up hurting the pro-life movement...is that what you want?
"The chorus of voices against Lambert's resolution yesterday included House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), a respected anti-abortion activist who was asked by RNC Chairman Jim Nicholson on Thursday to fly out to California and personally speak out against the proposal at the RNC winter strategy meeting.
Hyde told the 165 committee members they should applaud the supporters of the resolution for raising the profile of the abortion issue, on which he said Republicans have been too "timid" in recent years. But he urged the committee to defeat the proposal anyway.
"If you take take away our majority in Congress, all we will have left is lip service," Hyde said. "We don't need more resolutions and manifestos supporting life, we need laws. And if we lose our majority, pro-life legislation will go nowhere."
Gingrich also stressed the political dangers of the resolution, encouraging RNC members to support a pro-life platform while entertaining debate. "We must respect the right of some to disagree," he said. "
INDIAN WELLS, Calif., Jan. 16 - The Republican National Committee today blocked a resolution by antiabortion activists that would have denied party funds for candidates who failed to oppose a controversial late-term abortion procedure. The vote came after warnings from GOP leaders that passage of the measure could cost the party its congressional majorities.
After an impassioned debate that often pitted abortion opponents against one another, the 165-member committee approved a substitute resolution that stripped out any mention of tying party funding decisions to a candidate's stance on abortion. Critics of the original resolution said it amounted to imposing litmus tests on candidates that would drive voters away from the GOP.
The substitute language reaffirmed the party's opposition to the late-term abortion procedure, called a "partial-birth" abortion by opponents, and condemned President Clinton for twice vetoing legislation that would outlaw the procedure. The vote was 114 to 43.
Hours before the debate, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.), one of the party's leading abortion opponents, pleaded with members of the committee to reject the original resolution, warning that passage could set back efforts to restrict abortions in the United States. "The worst thing you can do for the pro-life cause is to lose our majority," Hyde said in a luncheon speech to the committee.
John Dendahl, the New Mexico GOP chairman, said endorsing a ban on party funding over the abortion issue could put the party on a "slippery slope ... at the bottom of which stands demagoguery and single-issue politics."
Mike Hellon, the Arizona chairman, said imposing a litmus test over abortion could lead to similar efforts on issues ranging from gun control to gay rights. "Pretty soon we have a Balkanized party," he said. "Pretty soon we no longer govern."
He accepted Government funding, not Government mandates. His plan only says that states should administer tests to measure performance to ferret out failing programs so they can be cut, therefore amounting to downsizing of the education system. The states have their choice of tests or they can design their own. That is the total extent of Federal involvment he proposes. It is a condition of receiving federal funds, not a mandate. The states have administered education programs for years and have failed miserably. Anyone that was educated in public school knows that. I think it is about d**n time someone held them accountable for the deplorable conditions of our public schools.
So Howard Who? did one thing and you call that a record? Ha ha ha ha ha.....let's compare it to George's record....
He didn't do just one thing. As chairman of the Conservative Caucus, Howard Phillips has repeatedly lobbied against federal funding for abortion.
Unlike Bush, Phillips is committed to appointing only pro-life judges.
Unlike Bush, who believes that it should be legal for children to be killed when a parent is a rapist, Phillips is totally pro-life.
Howard Phillips opposes party funding of pro-infanticide candidates, whereas George W. Bush encouraged his party to continue this pro-abortion policy.
George W. Bush has made a pro-abortion appointment in a health-related office (Texas Dept. of Health & Human Services), again crossing party lines to side with the left. While he had the power to do so, he has not used his positions to empower the pro-abortion agenda. Instead, he has fought to defund the left.
Bush has repeatedly aided pro-abortion Republicans and pro-abortion Democrats. Howard Phillips, on the other hand, has been a consistent and commmitted advocate of the right to life.
Yes...moderate Republicans have had a lot of success(LOL). Bush is a loser!
You hit the nail on the head, they sabotage their own success. Almost every day, someone posts this "Can't Vote for Bush" mantra of the third party cults. The title could just as well be, "How I Will Help Elect Gore". I understand the third party attraction. Bush is not a great communicator, and he is weak by conservative standards, I am not a great supporter of Bush, BUT, he is the ONLY canidate that has a chance to beat Gore, who IS a threat to the Constitution and every thing that the conservatives hold dear. The third party bunch have taken on a cult like persona, willing to drink poison Koolaid (helping get Gore elected) rather than putting country before party loyalty and making certain that Gore doesn't stack the Supreme Court with judges who will kill any attempt by future presidents and Congress to put the country on the right path. It is a pragmatic assesment that does what is best for the country under the present circumstances and puts aside, for this election cycle ONLY, the devotion to PURE PRINCIPALS or party loyalty, I may well be a third party member AFTER this election, but if Gore wins, it wil be of LITTLE effect which party you chose, because the Clinton/Gore Crime Syndicate will have put the death nail into the Constitution and the rule of law.
Bush was complicit in unconstitutional federal funding of education by accepting it, and he's advocating more of it in his campaign. (See original post.)
"PLEASE GOD -- PRESIDENT ALAN KEYES!! "
Didn't you hear? He said NO!
Has "Because I'm an irresponsible juvenile who doesn't care what happens to my country so long as I can feel good about myself" been taken as a guess, yet?
Dan
"A vote for BUSH is a vote for VICTORY and a vote against the democratic agenda. George Bush is a man of principle, integrity and of conservative ideals. Bush is also a nominee that CAN WIN by staying focussed and not allowing the press, the brigadeers or the keyesters to define him."
This is so true but we will have the brigadeers and keyesters getting votes to Gore on principle.
Lets talk principle when president Gore nominates Bill and/or Hillary to the supreme court. When any chance of Roe v Wade being over turned in just a memory and when they come to take your guns. When our military is completly turned over to the UN and our taxes at at 80 percent like many socialist countries. When they can only drive their automobiles on even numbered days to save the environment.
Then they can tell me they voted on principle.
They will never have a President Buchanan or a President Keyes but they sure want us to have a President Gore.
Principles my foot.
"Globalism and Plutocracy have poisoned the soul of Reagan's GOP..."
And you think we won't have Globalism or Plutocracy with President Gore?
Amem mom!
Amom, mem!!!
:-)
One appointment that I have never been able to confirm was pro-abortion or pro-life after doing an exhaustive search. You took the word of Donna Ballard, a confirmed Bush hater on this. I know your sources of info...and none of them are credible.
How is Ballard a "Bush hater," and what makes her information incorrect?
On the Lambert Resolution...I have also explained this to you before...it would have ended up hurting the pro-life movement...is that what you want?
The Lambert Resolution implicitly hurt the pro-life movement by aiding the campaigns of pro-abortion Republicans. In fact, the GOP lost support because this resolution passed. Grover Coors left the GOP in response to Bush, Nicholson, & McCain pushing for the Lambert Resolution.
"Most people (with common sense) when hungry enough will eat whatever it takes to stay alive."
That statement doesn't even makes sense; due to the fact they have a third choice. I guess the fools would lap up the rotten fish while there is steak on the menu? It only proves to me that the population will always be broken down into three different catagories: Patriots, Tories and passive Fools. Which one are you?
Correction: "In fact, the GOP lost support because this resolution passed. Grover Coors left the GOP in response to Bush, Nicholson, & McCain pushing for the Lambert Resolution." should have been: In fact, the GOP lost support because the resolution was rejected. Grover Coors left the GOP in response to the opposition to the resolution led by Bush, Nicholson, & McCain.
bump
"Can't wait to hear Limbo pontificate"
Do you recall the moron on one of the Buchanan threads who told Pat Buchanan to give up politics and educate himself by consulting the works of a "real master," Rush Limbaugh! That makes about as much sense as having Peter O'Toole or John Gielgud start consulting glitzy Hollywood pretty boys for advice on acting. Rush Limbaugh is a party hack and a cheap entertainer, Buchanan represents the politicized voice of traditionalist ideology.
Is it unreasonable to hold the GOP to a higher standard of respect for Sovereignty and the American Middle Class than the Dems?
GWB doesn't have a clue as to the Constitution--so why believe that he would appoint a constructionist (whatever the hell he means by that) vs a Constitutionalist?
As for sovereignty, he supports the WTO--a sovereignty-robbing international organization!
It may well be that the majority of Americans vote for either evil or the lesser evil....but they are still voting for evil.
There are more than two choices to be had....and there are a bunch of cowards who won't vote for what's right! They are as compromised and corrupted as the current hatch of politicans ruling in the Halls of Congress...though not necessarily in the same realm or area of compromise and corruption.
No party owns my vote and it appears there are a lot of other folks who don't believe in "party ownership" either.....your vote is something a candidate should earn.
So long as you continue to vote for evil, more or less is of no import, that is what you are going to get.
To say that anyone who doesn't vote "your" way is BS, pure and simple.....we can be saying the same thing, but we don't!
bump
You wrote: I like the odds of Bush beating Gore far better than any other third party candidate. I repsect others who support their candidates and strive for change. I just don't see it happening this election cycle. I just hope we can ban together"...
What are the "odds"? The history of the last 150 years says otherwise...
I'm with you brian. He's the only one running I can trust or believe.
carl..
Your posts 77 and 78 sound like a desperate person!
I would suggest you, yourself, take a stand on principle. Rather than be concerned with what party someone is registered in, why don't you work on your party power elites to provide a candidate that stands for something really important....like the future of the Nation!
It's pretty obvious from reading here, if the GOP was offering a candidate who has ingrained principles and took a position on them, there's a lot of FReepers who could vote for him or her. If we don't stand for principles, how can we expect our leaders to stand for them?
In your recitation of George's record, why didn't you include his no new taxes/tax increase pledge that he broke?
As to education, it is not a federal Constitutional power....to collect the money or re-distribute it with or without "strings"!
Not only that, GWB is calling for lots more federal money for education!
TM, if anybody is at fault for dubya losing look to yourself and your candidate. I think you didn't pay enough attention to John Dougherty's comments which I fully agree with. I think dubya should be trying harder to gain the support of those who don't like his stands on issues (or lack therof) instead of all you bushies repeating "a vote not for bush will be a vote for gore" mantra. Most people with any modicum of intelligence knows that is a stupid attempt at coersion. You guys really must have learned that by now, I hope. It's getting tiresome.If Bush loses the election, why does it have to be because core conservatives "abandoned" him, as one letter to the editor charges? Why can't it be because he abandoned core conservatives, didn't articulate his message well and didn't convince them he was worth voting for? Is this how Republicans assuage their consciences -- by blaming their losses on somebody else? Isn't that what Democrats do?
I refuse to take the heat for G.W. Bush's lukewarm conservatism. That's his fault, not mine. And I refuse to vote for "the lessor of two evils" because that doesn't change the fact that I'm still voting for one of those "evils."
Since we're doing graphics.....
Regarding the Lambert Resolution......am I ever glad I don't belong to the GOP! If the dumb bastards don't have the guts to refuse to fund somebody parading around as a GOP who believes in partial birth abortion, I will pray nightly that GOD assists in their losing every election for now and evermore!
My God....they all condemn the Pervert for refusing to sign a bill, yet joyfully provide the funds to elect like-minded ogres!!!
I think dubya should be trying harder to gain the support of those who don't like his stands on issues (or lack therof) instead of all you bushies repeating "a vote not for bush will be a vote for gore" mantra.
IMHO it's too late for that. He's had months to make make a commitment to appointing only pro-lifers. Instead, he praises the views of a pro-infanticide Republican, knowing full well that she favors the legality of the partial birth abortion.
Bush's campaigning against the Constitution doesn't exactly make him a patriot.
Since we're doing graphics.....
I can't let this thread get by without a Harry Browne sticker!...
It could happen
I hope and pray for Keyes, but I could handle a Phillips I think.
It could happen
I hope and pray for Keyes, but I could handle a Phillips I think.
I would say the same, swapping "Keyes" with "Phillips" and vice versa.
They are both friends. I could see either serving in the other's administration. I really hope Dr. Keyes accepts the Constitution Party's invitation to join.
Yeah, it is definitely too late, I was just saying that to emphasize the fact that they don't even do that right. They (the bushes) are just as arrogant as their candidate and think they can do it without the Christian conservatives, in fact many of them tell us they don't even want us around to get out of "their" party. But mention the reality that Bush will lose without us, and they begin their childish temper trantrums of --if Gore gets elected it's your fault, you nasty principled people who wouldn't drop your convictions and support our principles (which they don't have). They are so moderate and compassionate you could confuse them for demoncraps.
I have not seen many Bush supporters who think we can win without christian conservatives...quite the opposite. We think we can NOT do it without you.
GO GWB GO!
bump
Then why is Bush BETRAYING all conservatives , backtracking on education funding and campaign reform, trying to be more environmentally correct than GORE, and pushing his Left/Liberal "compassionate conservatism" crap???? Next thing he will do is pick a pro-choice VP running mate!!!You watch, that will be next week.
You say you are giving us facts. Ok I want documented EXIT polls from 1992 showing the ones voting for perot would of voted for bush.
That is the way I feel also. Knowing that Keyes does not have a shot short of a miricle...I have resigned myself to the fact we are winding down as a nation.
Who the heck are you to tell to get a life? Quit acting so superior, just because your guy will get the nomination does not mean you are right.
I Rush has stuck to what he wrote in his own books(Especialy the first one) then he would be doing OK right now.
"They seem to come in "waves." Wait till you meet the Buchanan Brigade"
You could be saying the same thing about the brainwashed bushies.
Don't you know by now that we have for vote for the pubbies because we HAVE TO. If we don't it will be our fault! Give me a break, the pubbies need a new excuse.
"Years down the road you will curse they day you let gore get in and you will get what you deserve."
You guys are a broken record blaming others for clintoon. One day I hear Rush preaching responsibility for your actions then the next day he is blaiming others for clinton getting elected. You bushies sound like rush.
". Look how many of the stupid sheeple voted for Clinton and favor Gore. "
This is too funny, on the one hand you tell us the stupid sheeple (your words) will not vote for Pat but those same stupid sheeple will vote for bush. What a vote of confidence.
Before you decide you can't vote for Bush, make sure your legs are limber enough to kick your but for four years after you realize that not voting for Bush was the same as a vote for your new President: Gore.
EXACTLY RIGHT, TICONDEROGA. At one time, the GOP WAS the party of soveriegnty, and non interventionism- not to mention against so-called "free trade". We need to remind some folks where the traditional treasures are; if they dig past the NWO stench, they just might find them!
To those who think having an "R" after a politician's name makes him a patriot; you should check out the GOP platform of 1896. It sounds a lot different than this one... but that was before we embraced some philosophies contrary to the Founders, IMO.
Give them the blazes, Ticonderoga... always good to see you on the net.
Really, how many times have you heard someone say, in the last eight years, "I regret to say I voted for Clinton or Perot."
On the radio, you hear all these people calling in and saying they wished they hadn't or they weren't informed at that time. Vote Bush or stop bitching about the leadership of this country.
TM, if anybody is at fault for dubya losing look to yourself and your candidate.
I think you didn't pay enough attention to John Dougherty's comments which I fully agree with.
If Bush loses the election, it will not be "because core conservatives abandoned him," as one letter to the editor charges!
It will, rather, be because he, like his father [Whose similar lack of a Principled base and abandonment of Our Nation's Founding Tenets makes him almost single-handedly responsible for foisting the KKKli'toon crime era onto Our Nation] before him, has abandoned core conservatives, because he does not articulate his message well and because he does not convince them he is worth voting for?
Is this how Republicans assuage their consciences -- by blaming their losses on somebody else? Isn't that what Democrats do?
I refuse to take the heat for G.W. Bush's lukewarm conservatism. That's his fault, not mine. And I refuse to vote for "the lessor of two evils" because that doesn't change the fact that I'm still voting for one of those "evils."
I Absolutely believe that Dubya should be trying harder to gain the support of those who do not like his stands on issues (or lack therof) instead of all you bushies repeating "a vote not for bush will be a vote for gore" mantra.
Most people with any modicum of intelligence knows that is a stupid attempt at coersion. You guys really must have learned that by now, I hope. It's getting tiresome.
Wow!
I liked this message so much, here it is again!!
BIGGER AND BOLDER -- AND IN OTHER WAYS -- MORE FORCEFUL TOO!!
Regards
Brian
BY GOD'S GRACE, PRESIDENT ALAN KEYES!
I don't know if this has been brought up before but, Joe Farah has had a problem with the GOP because the Congress did not come to his rescue in a dispute with the IRS. He wrote an "editorial" a few months ago begging the Democrats to pressure the GOP leadership on his behalf. It could be that his present position on GWB is simply payback.
Take Personal action to oust the GOre/Clinton regime --> vote Bush.
Reference Ross Perot.
Well said. In the real world it is either Bush or Gore, come election day. At least Bush and I are from the same planet. Maybe I am a bigot but I'm voting for the home boy.
Remember, W intends to win. That means he is not going to use the same losing tactics that pro-life Conservatives have used for the past 30 years ......
Cocaine-Dubbugh-yagh Bush is beatable [By Algore, the world's most dangerous dullard, for Goodness sake] precicely because he has not learned [Even from his loser -- and almost single-handedly responsible for the KKKli'toon era -- father] the Absolute Fundamental of American Politics: that if you run as a "democrat" against a "Democrat," the "Democrat" will win every time.
Only America's Greatest-Ever Modern President Ronald Wilson Reagan ran as a Republican.
And fundamentally-conservative America loved him for it then, loves him for it now -- and will for-ever love, admire and respect his memory for it!
And for what it is worth, if [After the obscenely-insulting "kinda, gentlah presidency" inaugural vomit -- and his adaptation of the "Democrats'" tax increases, that is] there was a single turning point in the presidency of George Herbert Walker Bush at which that gentleman's defeat became inevitable, it was at the moment when the moronic Cocaine-George Duhbbhyah Bush played to the "Democrats'" hand and -- by firing John Sununu -- ripped out the heart, lungs, liver and lights of the Bush "presidency" -- and it's entire backbone and spinal column!
We have seen Duhbhyagh "in action," thanks.
And, thanks all the same -- but: "No! Thanks!"
BY GOD'S GOOD GRACE, PRESIDENT ALAN KEYES!!
The first will take you to hell in the fast lane, the other will take you there in the slow lane. Either way, your destination is the same -- you're still on the highway to hell.
If I'm in the slow lane, I stand a better chance of turning off the highway.
Why -- that is just exactly what the frog said!
Just a second or two before it became "the boiled frog!"
Cocaine-Dughbbhyagh's kind of slow boiling is a million times more insidious -- and, thus, infinitely more dangerous -- than that of the world's most dangerous dullard:- ol' "Affluent-Munksfah" Algor.
BY GOD'S GRACE, PRESIDENT ALAN KEYES!!
Take Personal action to oust the GOre/Clinton regime ......
Except that it is not.
Gore -- and his office -- are as irrelevent now as were both the person and the office of vice president when its occupant was Dan Quayle.
It has been the Bush/Cli'toon regime!
Lest we forget!
BY GOD'S GOOD GRACES, PRESIDENT ALAN KEYES!!
I agree with you that G.W.Bush is not the ideal canidate nor is he the best choice of the Republican party. However, he is the canidate. Even with all of his shortcomings the country is far better off with him than Gore. We cannot stand by and let Gore be elected. If you cannot vote for Bush then who else is there with any kind of chance of defeating Gore.
I have resigned myself to the fact we are winding down as a nation.
That's exactly what the liberals and pseudoconservatives want you to do: to give in to their socialist agenda!
I would rather invest in an opportunity to restore Constitutional integrity than to give in to their New World Order & anti-Constitutional ideas.
In his article on Educational Freedom, Howard Phillips comments on such pressure tactics:
Republicans
crawl out of their "Big Tent" every four years and tell us
that "nothing can be done". That's because there is
nothing they try to do to reverse the expansion of
Federal spending, Federal taxes, and Federal
regulation, which they consistently support.
Since 1994, they have voted to increase Federal spending and taxes to a
level of more than $2 trillion, about $600 billion per year more than when
they gained control of Congress six years ago. The GOP leadership
defends its collaboration with Bill Clinton at the White House, Richard
Gephardt and Tom Daschle on Capitol Hill, by saying, "half a loaf is better
than none". But half a loaf of political poison is, in fact, much worse than
no loaf at all. They want you to despair. They want you to settle for less.
They want you to forfeit the game and give up on achieving the policy
changes for which they are unwilling to risk their political careers. But to
achieve victory, first you must seek it, and, by God's grace, if you seek it,
you may in fact achieve it.
You make a good point. Jon Dougherty comments on the establishment Republican blame game in Republicans, please stop whining about your losses.
It could be that his present position on GWB is simply payback.
Well, you probably are right in that statement. However, every one who is voted for someone because they are "R" is really only using the 'payback' motivation. Unless you are voting 'FOR' the candidate you feel is the best in representing the principles and morals you want this country to represent, then you are only voting to payback the party or voting against the other party. That's "payback". I believe Joe Farah sees the nakedness of dubya and that is the real reason he cannot vote for dubya. To blindly follow the masses, or crowd is the same thing seep do when they follow the judas sheep to the slaughter.
"There is, fairly or not, the sense that Al Gore and George Bush
are
where they are not because of who they are but because of who
Dad and
Granddad were. ...More importantly, [there] ... may also be a
reaction
to the perceived anointing of Gov. Bush as nominee long before
the
primary season began. The Ronald Reagan Republican party is a
bottom
up, grassroots party. Unlike the Democrats, it is not a top
down,
elite cadre machine. Republican candidates are expected to pay
dues
and earn their stripes and garner support the old fashioned way
-- by
working hard for it. The anointing of Gov. Bush, like Bob Dole
before
him, goes down uneasily with grassroots Republicans who feel the
party
is theirs, not the property of some Washington elite group of
businessmen and lawyers." --Peter Roff
I agree.
"Most people (with common sense) when hungry enough will eat whatever it takes to stay alive." That statement doesn't even makes sense; due to the fact they have a third choice. I guess the fools would lap up the rotten fish while there is steak on the menu? It only proves to me that the population will always be broken down into three different catagories: Patriots, Tories and passive Fools. Which one are you?
Please, what an utter joke that Pat (Ralph Nader out polls me) Buchanan is a viable third choice. It's obvious you're a "passive fool", because when your guy loses in November, you and your candidate will have ZERO influence on the Supreme Court, legislation, etc.
That's about as passive as it gets!!
". Look how many of the stupid sheeple voted for Clinton and favor Gore. " This is too funny, on the one hand you tell us the stupid sheeple (your words) will not vote for Pat but those same stupid sheeple will vote for bush. What a vote of confidence.
Note my quote says they voted for Clinton/Gore, not Bush. That being said. No candidate can win without getting a good chunk of the sheeple vote. It's reality. If you want to lose and keep getting 5%, ignore this truth.
First of all, any choice of VP is still purely speculation...so your question is moot...
...although Bush stated that he would appoint strict constitutionalists...GWB knows that abortion IS unconstitutional...he is just not going to fall into the media trap that many of his Pubbies predecessors did...
New Hampshire, June 14th, 1999 - Texas Governor George W. Bush held a press conference that both confounded the liberal news media and caused him to draw fire from openly Pro-life Conservative Presidential Candidates.
The question was about the abortion 'litmus test' and potential Supreme Court nominations. W's answer, ''There will be no litmus tests, except for whether or not the judges will strictly interpret the Constitution." The liberal news media saw this answer as a hopeful sign that W is a social 'moderate' on the issue of abortion. Pro-life leaders feared the liberal news media may be right. There is, of course, a different way to look at his answer.
With the double-talkin' Dubya, there are MANY different ways to look at his answers, since he rarely gives a straight answer to anything.
RE: Vice President...when George W. Bush plays kissy-face with pro-abort Christine Todd Whitman and states that GOPers can disagree on the abortion issue with ease, it's hardly a "moot point". I don't recall Alan Keyes, Pat Buchanan, or Howard Phillips attempting to bend over backwards to defend an indefensible position.
RE: The Supremes..."strict Constitutionalists", eh? George W. Bush happens to support abortion in the cases of rape and incest, i.e., causing innocents to die due to the actions of the guilty. What better way for rapists and interfamilial sexual child abusers to hide their crimes than with an attitude like this?
Does Dubya the Hedge view abortions performed in cases of rape and incest as Constitutional? I'm still looking for it. How does he defend this position of his? Would he appoint judges and Supremes who hold the same position? What if a judge or a Supreme believed that only abortions performed to save the life of the mother could be countenanced?
And I'm not impressed with Mr. Bush's game-playing with the media. If Mr. Bush considers performing verbal gymnastics on important issues due to his fear of how the media presents him as something positive, then he doesn't have the fire in his belly to be President, as far as I'm concerned. He seems more worried about winning this election and his reputation with the left-wing journalistic establishment than with the concerns of the American people.
So far, his representation of himself "on his own terms" is not appealing to me.
Conservatives need to pay attention to what this man is doing. It is shrewd.
I am paying attention. I see a life-long Dauphin who learned a lot from his Poppy on how to be a career politician and how to say things in just such a way as to give hope to everyone...and to confuse everyone equally. "Shrewd" is not always a positive trait.
MERC: Is it or is it not true that G.W. Bush views China as a "trading partner" to be glad-handed rather than as a ruthless leviathian who has made it perfectly clear what they think of America and how they intend to deal with America once we've been suckered into believing that they are our "friends in trade"?
RAVE: That is also NOT true...
I said "trading partner", not "strategic partner".
Okay...from your candidate's own lips, then...
"China is a competitor, a competitor which does not share our values but now, unfortunately, shares many of our nuclear secrets. There are some areas of mutual benefit [but] we must deal with China in a firm and consistent manner."
And then, raver, while you split hairs with me, here is your candidate's idea of a "consistent manner" of dealing with China:
"I think the next president needs to hold -- needs to understand that China, while we can find some areas of agreement such as -- such as opening their markets, that they need to be viewed as a competitor, and a strategic competitor."
"I think if we turn our back on China and isolate China things will get worse. Imagine if the Internet took hold in China. Imagine how freedom would spread. Our greatest export to the world has been, is and always will be the incredible freedom we understand in America. And that's why it's important for us to trade with China to encourage the growth of an entrepreneurial class. It gets that taste of freedom. It gets that breath of freedom in the marketplace."
In other words...George W. Bush supports China as a "TRADING PARTNER", correct?
So far, we have been working with China for many years "to encourage the growth of an entrepreneurial class". NEWS FLASH: ChiCom is not interested in us as a trading partner. ChiCom is interested in promoting to an addled America the seductive idea that somehow China can possess as its government a "kinder, gentler communism", open to trade and goodwill and niceness and candy bunnies for Easter, and as such, America can be blinded to the horrific repressions, tyrannical control, cruelty, poverty, murder, and destruction of the spirit that Chinese communism demands of its slaves.
Heck, they've seduced Dubya with this notion. He believes all we need to do is CONTINUE trading with China - in SPITE of evidence that this tolerance simply presents America as suckers to ChiCom - and that one day, as with a magic wand and pixie dust, the Chinese government will see the error of its ways.
Now with this viewpoint, if George W. Bush were running for President of Fantasyland, he might be a legitimate candidate.
Trade will help expand the private sector in China. Trade will open a window to the free world for the people of China. But there is a difference between selling food and selling technology that could be used against America and our allies. China's growing military capabilities present serious challenges for the United States. The Cox report should prompt a full and serious review of export controls, to make certain that America's technology is not arming China's military.
What about making sure our MFN policy towards China and our trade glad-handing is not freeing up China's own massive budget to finance this military? If we hadn't been kissing ChiCom behind for so long and had withheld our trading goodwill, it would have been harder for them to explain to their own people why they were building up their military rather than feeding them.
RE: "Skull and Bones" and Globalism:
He was "tapped" as a "legacy", was forced into joining by his dad, but did not participate in their activities...so that makes your argument moot again...
Evidently Poppy knew the benefits of being a Bonesman, and if a grown man can be "forced" by his dad into joining such a society, so could Dubya.
Minutaglio quotes Robert Reisner, a Deke brother of George W.'s, recalling that on the eve of Yale's "Tap Night," George W. told him that he was thinking seriously about rejecting the expected invitation to join Bones and instead joining a less elite (and, from the sound of its name, more party-hearty) secret society called "Gin & Tonic." But George W. ended up choosing Skull & Bones over Gin & Tonic after all...And though he joined Skull & Bones, he whiled away his nights with a much less refined group, the hard-drinking frat brothers of DKE...
Considering the type of initiation one goes through to join "Skull and Bones", it seems highly unlikely that he would take his membership as lightly as claimed.
If it really *is* something to be brushed aside, then perhaps Dubya, who seems totally willing to sway and bend for the benefit of moderates, should relieve the minds of his conservative critics and totally renounce his "inconsequential" and "disappointing" Bonesman membership...and reveal their secrets before the world. One of the plans of the Bonesmen are to be in and of themselves among the elite movers and shakers of governments, which will be so much more easily accomplished under the auspices of globalism. Of course, that means the destroying America's sovereignty, but what is that to a group to whom power and money are gods?
Powerful people have removed themselves from elite societies before due to the societies' sinister agendae, plus revealed the hidden backgrounds, at great personal risk and loss in order that the evil truth of such societies be known.
Of course, if Dubya did shine the light on "Skull and Bones", I think we would see his political career disintegrate before our very eyes. In keeping their secrets, he is still a Bonesman and worthy of that organization's enormous influence.
What's "forcing" Dubya to remain a Bonesman? Nothing. It's his choice to remain in a society that exerts such muscle in American and international politics, despite the risk to America's power.
Also, can someone explain to me why, out of hundreds of internet service providers in Texas, Dubya's campaign is sponsored by Illuminati Online (check the Nov. 9, 1999 article)?. "The Bush campaign chose IO because they wanted to stick with an Austin ISP . . . and, in a city that has several high-quality Internet providers with first-class connectivity, they picked us because of our reputation for customer service and reliability. We’re proud of that . . . and we’re proud that so far, we’re doing the job they expected."
Of course, it might JUST be coincidence, but the Illuminati and "Skull and Bones" go hand-in-hand if you've ever taken the time to study the issue. And io.com looks like they're pretty serious about the whole Illuminati ideals, especially considering the games they promote on their website. But this association is just a little too "in-your-face" considering that Dubya's cohorts claim he didn't take his membership in the "Skull and Bones" seriously.
Also, on a sideline, while we're talking about reasons in general why I won't vote for the Hedge...he's too pro-government involvement in education and seems rather spineless when it comes to immigration issues.
Geez...you really gotta quit listening to the some of the kooks that end up on this site, LOL!
Geez, rave...you really oughta take off your rose-colored blinders and watch your diet. All this straining at gnats and swallowing camels could cause blockage.
I'M not the one continually quoting a candidate's massive inconsistencies and then turning around and calling people "kooks" for not supporting him.
Likewise, Founder Fan, it's a pleasure to see you battling the shills of the NWO Plutocracy for America's Middle Class (White and Blue Collar).
Globalism and Plutocracy have poisoned the soul of Reagan's GOP...
In their betrayal of our Sovereignty, our Constitution, our Borders, our Western Culture and our American Standard of Living--which means more than cheap, ubiquitous ChiCom junk--the Repugs are interchangeable with the Demons...
Likewise, Founder Fan, it's a pleasure to see you battling the shills of the NWO Plutocracy for America's Middle Class (White and Blue Collar).
Globalism and Plutocracy have poisoned the soul of Reagan's GOP...
In their betrayal of our Sovereignty, our Constitution, our Borders, our Western Culture and our American Standard of Living--which means more than cheap, ubiquitous ChiCom junk--the Repugs are interchangeable with the Demons...
Likewise, Founder Fan, it's a pleasure to see you battling the shills of the NWO Plutocracy for America's Middle Class (White and Blue Collar).
Globalism and Plutocracy have poisoned the soul of Reagan's GOP...
In their betrayal of our Sovereignty, our Constitution, our Borders, our Western Culture and our American Standard of Living--which means more than cheap, ubiquitous ChiCom junk--the Repugs are interchangeable with the Demons...
Great post, Mercuria!!
For more on the Bush Dynasty's Luciferian "Skull and Bones" Order, see this link.
I completely agree with your post #24. Either Bush or Gore will be the next president. Period. It doesn't matter how much closer you might agree with Keyes or Buchanan or Phillips or Browne, the only time any of them will ever see the inside of the White House is if they take the public tour. Bush wasn't my first choice until he sewed up the Republican nomination. Now that he has, I am not going to support a third party candidate who has no chance of winning. With Bush, conservatives have a very good chance of seeing some of their positions reflected in laws and administration policy. Zero chance with Gore. Zero chance with all the third party candidates who lose. A vote for a third party candidate this year helps no one but Gore.
I am headed home for the day and don't have time to reply now...but I will leave you with something to ponder...
I was a Girl Scout once...I left that behind me YEARS ago and never looked back, didn't ever bother to denounce my membership. By your logic I should still be selling cookies.
If, after my admittedly lengthy harangue, the best you can do is attempt to compare the GIRL SCOUTS to SKULL AND BONES, all I can say is you are short a box of Thin Mints from the Variety Pack, honey...and have a few Savannahs missing as well.
Take it to the next thread...
bump
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.
[
Top
|
Latest Posts
|
Latest Articles
|
Self Search
|
Add Bookmark
|
Post
|
Abuse
|
Help!
]
FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC |