-Caveat Lector- Should we give George Bush another chance? Harry Browne ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- © 2001 WorldNetDaily.com WorldNetDaily Publisher Joseph Farah received a lot of flak from readers when he suggested that the Bush presidency may be considerably less than what you dream of. The theme of the flak was, "Shut up and give George Bush a chance." But this overlooks the record. What the Bush backers should have said was, "Shut up and give Bush another chance." He's already had a chance. In fact, he's had two of them -- and he failed in both cases. The big-government governor The first chance was his reign as governor of Texas. He had almost six years to work for smaller government. Is the Texas government less expensive, less intrusive, less oppressive than it was six years ago? Hardly. The Texas Eagle Forum says government in Texas grew by over a third between 1995 and 1999. New gun-control laws were enacted. No state agencies or departments were eliminated. So he flunked his first chance. And that's in a state that's supposedly conservative. Do you expect him to be more libertarian now that he has to please a whole nation o f special-interest groups? The big-government candidate George Bush's second chance came during the recent campaign. He was running against a politician who was on the side of bigger government on every issue. Bush had a golden opportunity to gain major support by calling attention to the expense, futility and danger of Al Gore's big-government schemes. Instead, Bush offered his own version of each of these obscenities. Running against an obvious petty dictator, he barely squeaked out a victory because he never offered a true contrast. Oh yes, when speaking in generalities, he was for limited government, "strict construction of the Constitution," and the like. But whenever he was specific, it was always for bigger and bigger government that violated constitutional restraints. Take health care. We once had the best health-care system in history: personal service from doctors, low-cost hospitals, free clinics, charity hospitals and health insurance accessible to virtually everyone. Then the politicians created Medicare and turned our health-care system into a nightmare. So what cure did George Bush offer? He proposed a new government boondoggle for prescription drugs. Four years from now, I hope you aren't in dire need of a life-saving medicine. He presented big-government schemes for education, welfare, campaign finance, and any other area that was an election issue. And what government programs did he promise to get rid of -- or even reduce? None. He flunked his second chance. The big-government president George Bush is already failing his third chance. He's staffing his administration with out-of-work liberal politicians and retreads from previous Republican presidencies. There's one appointee who fits neither of those categories, but is even worse. That's John Ashcroft, who will be attorney general. Here's a man who has no more respect for the Constitution or your liberty than Janet Reno does. He's apparently never met an invasion of your freedom that he didn't think was necessary to fight crime or drugs. This demonstrates once again that there's really very little difference between the left and the right. Left-wing politicians take away your liberty in the name of children and of fighting poverty, while right-wing politicians do it in the name of family values and fighting drugs. Either way, government gets bigger and you become less free. Thanks to George Bush and John Ashcroft, four years from now it will be easier for the government to tap your phone, read your email, snoop in your bank account, raid your home by mistake, and regiment your life. It doesn't matter whether you have an interest in guns or drugs or crime, because every American citizen will lose another chunk of his remaining freedom. What do you expect? Government spending, government snooping, government gun control -- all will expand in a Bush administration. This isn't conjecture or ill-wishing. It is simply obvious. Part of the reason is that the conservative organizations that would raise a stink if Bill Clinton proposed to steal your freedom will go into hibernation now that "one of our own" is safely in the White House. Do you really think George Bush is going to stop the federal government from snooping in your bank account and your e-mail? Do you really think he's going to stop the deterioration of health care and education by getting the federal government out of those areas? Do you really think he's going to stop risking your life by antagonizing foreign countries? If you believe any of those things, I have just two words for you: Grow up. What do you want? If what you want in a President is someone -- anyone -- who isn't Bill Clinton or Al Gore, then George Bush will suffice very well. But if what you want is someone who will make the government less expensive, l ess intrusive, less oppressive -- someone who recognizes that the Constitution prohibits the government from meddling in your life -- you're moving in the opposite direction with George Bush. In that case, instead of sitting around waiting to give Mr. Bush a chance to prove himself, shouldn't you get busy trying to assure that you'll never again have to choose between two big-government presidential candidates? Shouldn't you be looking for a political party that actually wants to get government out of your life? A party like -- for example (in fact, the only example) -- the Libertarians? It all comes back to what you want. Do you just want to beat Clinton and Gore at the polls? If so, you've got what you want. Or do you want to get your freedom back? If so, you lost this last election. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Harry Browne was the Libertarian presidential candidate. More of his articles can be read at HarryBrowne.org. <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
