George Bush

House Democrats recently adopted a budget with massive tax hikes, many of which are directed at those Americans who can least afford them. By allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010, this budget will raise income taxes not only on those in the highest income brackets, but raises the lowest bracket from 10% to 15% as well. Estates would again be taxed at 55%. The child tax credit would drop from $1000 to $500. Senior citizens relying on investment income would be hurt by increases in dividend and capital gains taxes. It's not just that the Democrats want to raises taxes on the rich. They want to raises taxes on everybody.

The problem is, policing the world is expensive, and if elected officials insist upon continuing to fund our current foreign policy, the money has to come from somewhere. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have already cost us over $1 trillion. The Democrats' budget gives the President all the funding he needs for his foreign policy, so one wonders how serious they ever were about ending the war. While Democrats propose to tax and spend, many Republicans aim to borrow and spend, which hurts the taxpayer just as much in the long run.

The latest National Intelligence Estimate has been greeted by a mixture of relief and alarm. As I have been saying all along, Iran indeed poses no quantifiable imminent nuclear threat to us or her neighbors. It is with much alarm, however, that we see the administration continue to ratchet up the war rhetoric as if nothing has changed.

Indeed nothing has changed from the administration's perspective, as they have had this latest intelligence report for some time. Only this week has it been made known to the public. They want it both ways with Iran. On the one hand, they discredit the report entirely, despite it being one of the most comprehensive intelligence reports on the subject, with over 1,000 source notes in the document. On the other hand, when discrediting it fails, they claim that the timing of the abandonment of the weapons program, just as we were invading Iraq, means our pressure must have worked, so we must keep it up with a new round of even tougher sanctions. Russia and China are not buying this, apparently, and again we are finding ourselves on a lonely tenuous platform on the world stage.

I have been known to visit websites that are frequented by, shall we say, somewhat less-than-politically-correct commentators. A rash of recent comments have stated, "George W. Bush is a douche bag".

I disagree.

Faced with dwindling support of the Iraq War, the warhawks are redoubling their efforts. They imply we are in Iraq attacking those who attacked us, and yet this is not the case. As we know, Saddam Hussein, though not a particularly savory character, had nothing to do with 9/11. The neo-cons claim surrender should not be an option. In the same breath they claim we were attacked because of our freedoms. Why then, are they so anxious to surrender our freedoms with legislation like the Patriot Act, a repeal of our 4th amendment rights, executive orders, and presidential signing statements? With politicians like these, who needs terrorists? Do they think if we destroy our freedoms for the terrorists they will no longer have a reason to attack us? This seems the epitome of cowardice coming from those who claim a monopoly on patriotic courage

While fear itself is not always the product of irrationality, once experienced it tends to lead away from reason, especially if the experience is extreme in duration or intensity. When people are fearful they tend to be willing to irrationally surrender their rights.

Thus, fear is a threat to rational liberty. The psychology of fear is an essential component of those who would have us believe we must increasingly rely on the elite who manage the apparatus of the central government.

The statement “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” has been attributed to Benjamin Franklin. It is clear, people seek out safety and security when they are in a state of fear, and it is the result of this psychological state that often leads to the surrender of liberty.

I have been one of the strongest opponents of military action against Iraq . I voted against the initial authorization in 2002 and I have voted against every supplemental appropriations bill to fund the war. I even voted against the initial “ Iraq regime change” legislation back in 1998. I believe our troops should be brought back to the United States without delay. Unfortunately, one of the reasons I oppose this legislation is that it masquerades as a troop withdrawal measure but in reality may well end up increasing US commitments in the Middle East .

Mr. Speaker, this is precisely the debate we should have had four years ago, before Congress voted to abrogate its Constitutional obligation to declare war and transfer that authority to the president. Some in this body were rather glib in declaring the constitution antiquated while voting to cede the ability to initiate hostilities to the President. Now we see the result of ignoring the Constitution, and we are bringing even more mayhem to the process with this legislation.

George Bush wants a legacy and he has one. Death of Iraqis, death of Americans, the death of freedom, the Constitution, and the desecration of the vision that was America.

All the reasons given to justify a preemptive strike against Iraq were wrong. Congress and the American people were misled.

Support for the war came from various special interests that had agitated for an invasion of Iraq since 1998. The Iraq Liberation Act, passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton, stated that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was official U.S. policy. This policy was carried out in 2003.

Congress failed miserably in meeting its crucial obligations as the branch of government charged with deciding whether to declare war. It wrongly and unconstitutionally transferred this power to the president, and the president did not hesitate to use it.

Consider the following policy proposals that have been floating around Washington in the months leading up to the 2006 election: (a) creating a new cabinet-level federal Department of Families; (b) giving every child $2,000 at birth; (c) having the federal government fund 70,000 new math and science teachers; and (d) requiring every American to purchase health insurance. One might expect that those proposals were made by liberal Democrats, perhaps Ted Kennedy or Hillary Clinton preparing for their Senate majority. In fact, every one of them was made by conservative Republicans. Or consider President George W. Bush. Bush was the first Republican since Eisenhower to run for president without calling for cutting or abolishing a single government program. Since his election, Bush has presided over the largest expansion of government spending since Lyndon Johnson initiated the Great Society. Domestic spending has increased by 27 percent during his presidency. More people now work for the federal government than at any time since the Cold War. Not a single federal program has been eliminated.

Being a Republican since 1953, I believe I am in a good position to analyze the actions of these Conservatives who are running in this decade under an assumed name. More than being just a Republican I have been a supporter of Free Enterprise Capitalism.

When President Richard Nixon proved himself to be less than honest and resigned I began to take a closer look at the GOP. I had cut my teeth on the 1964 Goldwater campaign and became a worker for the cause. Senator Goldwater introduced the term "Conservative" meaning limited government individual freedoms and personal responsibilities. I saw in his campaign a strong view at the 10th Amendment giving the Federal Government authority over only what was designated in the Constitution. It released all the individual states to set their own social laws.

The scandal at Walter Reed is not an isolated incident. It is directly related to our foreign policy of interventionism.

There is a pressing need to reassess our now widely accepted role as the world’s lone superpower. If we don’t, we are destined to reduce our nation to something far less powerful.

Nobody wins elections by promising to take us to war. But once elected, many politicians greatly exaggerate the threat posed by a potential enemy-- and the people too often carelessly accept the dubious reasons given to justify wars.

Hi All,

We managed to secure the re-print rights for a great recent speech by U.S. Rep. Ron Paul. Ron Paul is exploring a 2008 Presidential Bid, and as one of the most libertarian thinking realistic potential Presidential candidates, we invite you to explore his site ( http://www.ronpaulexplore.com/ ) and offer him as much support as you are able.*

In other news, we've received two great comments by G.F. "Hookman" Brown this last week on Toll Road corruption. The first expounds on the method by which the Toll Road Authority can skim money by purposeful overcharges. And then he documents a third party source showing the proof of the overcharging. Corruption in Texas hasn't ever had it this good. See "Challenge Toll Roads and the Trans Texas Corridor" below.

Best Regards,

M.J. Taylor
Publisher
ReasonToFreedom.com

*Even if it's just adding a link to his site, and feel free to copy our Link code from our footer.

- Current Article: -
Everybody Supports the Troops, by US Rep. Ron Paul
http://www.reasontofreedom.com/Everybody_Supports_the_Troops_Ron_Paul.html
Instead of questioning who has the best interests of our troops at heart, we should be debating which policy is best for our country. Defensive wars to preserve our liberties, fought only with proper congressional declarations, are legitimate. Casualties under such circumstances still are heartbreaking, but they are understandable. Casualties that occur in undeclared, unnecessary wars, however, are bewildering. Why must so many Americans be killed or hurt in Iraq when our security and our liberty were not threatened?

In reality, support for the status quo (and the president's troop surge) in Iraq means expanding the war to include Syria and Iran. The naval build up in the region, and the proxy war we just fought to take over Somalia, demonstrate the administration's intentions to escalate our current war into something larger.

Instead of questioning who has the best interests of our troops at heart, we should be debating which policy is best for our country. Defensive wars to preserve our liberties, fought only with proper congressional declarations, are legitimate. Casualties under such circumstances still are heartbreaking, but they are understandable. Casualties that occur in undeclared, unnecessary wars, however, are bewildering. Why must so many Americans be killed or hurt in Iraq when our security and our liberty were not threatened?

In reality, support for the status quo (and the president’s troop surge) in Iraq means expanding the war to include Syria and Iran. The naval build up in the region, and the proxy war we just fought to take over Somalia, demonstrate the administration’s intentions to escalate our current war into something larger.

Thought of the moment:
"If the Cocaine Industry had commissioned a consultant to design a mechanism to insure profitability, it couldn't have done better than the War on Drugs."
- Nancy Gertner, US District Court Judge

- Current Article -
The Long March towards Freedom: Will the LP be the vehicle for realizing America's Vision?, by The Melinda
http://www.reasontofreedom.com/long_march_to_freedom_lp_vehicle_america_vision.html
If you were wondering why the LP is stalled and spinning its wheels you will be glad to know that there is a reason. You will also be heartened to know that there is a solution that will bring in new recruits, eager to work for change that fulfills the original Mission Statement Thomas Jefferson set out in the Declaration of Independence. It is time to get serious about freedom.

The Bush Folks have decided that SMU is the right place for it; close to the Dallas Cuntry Club and easily reachable by dozens of Bush Pioneers and Rangers and by Bush and Cheney themselves from their homes now being built just blocks away. How will a Librry without printed material available bring in the public? In cooperation with Disney and Major Corporations the answer comes forth. Bushland, open for you in 2008. Get your tickets from the White House now.