-Caveat Lector- from: http://members.tripod.com/~Borocar/bush.htm <A HREF="http://members.tripod.com/~Borocar/bush.htm">George W. Bush Jr. and the Ribbon Thing </A> ----- How do you like your blue-eyed boy, Mr. Death? "Medium Rare, please." -- G.W. Bush Hi. I'm George W. Bush Jr. I want to be your next president. No, there's no good reason why I should get the job, but when has that ever stopped a Bush, eh? See. . . you can't answer! Besides, the lame ass conservatives will vote for me, since they would rather compromise with evil than see evil itself (Mr. Algore) in the White House. Hey, with minds like that, how can I lose? But don't worry, folks, I'm really just a good old boy. Just like most of you, I played around with fast women, back when they would look at me (don't worry, they won't anymore). I also played around with drugs, but I've learned my lesson well, and nowadays I believe that an underprivileged inner city youth who gets caught with cocaine (~sniff, sniff~) deserves about twenty five years in the penitentiary. So, as you see, I've matured! I also believe in telling the truth (before it shoots me in the foot), so I wanna come "clean" and let you know that I'm a bit of a madcap. You see, back in my days at the University, I joined an interesting secret society, known as "Skull and Bones." Well, I can't say very much about it (after all, it's a secret society), but I will confess that during my initiation, I spent some quality time laid back buck naked in a moldy old coffin. There's more! While I lay in that dank nasty box, I had a ribbon tied around my weenie. What color ribbon? Sorry, I'm not allowed to say. Anyway, just let me assure you that it will never happen again, and hey, even if it does, don't you think having a ribbon around your thing is less immoral than having the post pubescent lips of an intern clamped tightly in the same position? I just knew you'd see things my way! Thank you, and DON'T FORGET TO VOTE! -- G. W. Bush P.S. If you like, view a picture of the offending Weenie Ribbon here. Alan Keys does not "buy" Bush: Why Bush Fails Alan Key's Litmus Test (you must read this) News from the "Hill:" Republicans - still beating around the "Bush" (Jim Hill) [ Top ] [ See the Weenie Ribbon ] ===== from: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_keyes/19990618_xcake_why_bush_f.shtml <A HREF="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_keyes/19990618_xcake_why_bush_f.sht ml">Why Bush fails my litmus test </A> ----- |||| FRIDAY JUNE 18 1999 � Alan Keyes is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host. His WorldNetDaily column appears every Friday. You can hear his radio program over the internet via Real Audio. � ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Why Bush fails my litmus test ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I got an e-mail the other day from someone urging me to get behind George W. Bush so that the Republicans could unite behind someone (anyone?) and, supposedly, win the presidency. I have said for months that I simply would not support George W. Bush. My decision was confirmed again this week when Bush announced that as president he would not have a "pro-life litmus test" for his judicial nominations. Of course, Gore and Clinton will put death-dealers on the Court no matter what, and make it very clear that this is what they are going to do. So why should those of us who understand the devastation that our abandonment of moral principle is causing in American life and conscience be expected to put up with so-called "pro-life" Republicans who simply decline to oppose the culture of death by straightforwardly championing the agenda of life? When George W. Bush says that he isn't going to have a pro-life litmus test, we should ask, "Why not have a litmus test?" The pro-abortion forces have a litmus test. Why does the supposed Republican champion hold that evil people can make evil a litmus test, but good people shouldn't make good a litmus test? Let's examine a little more closely what is really implied by the phrase "litmus test." Refusing to have a litmus test on abortion means, in my opinion, refusing to defend principle, or to uphold integrity. Because if you have integrity and principles, then the principles themselves, and your active defense of them, constitute a litmus test. Since principles have consequences, certain stands on certain issues will be reflective of those principles. So if a leader has a clear sense of the principles that need to govern his judgment and conscience he will be alert for those great issues that can arise under our Constitution -- I call them "Declaration Issues" -- in which our fundamental principles come to the surface and must be defended and renewed. Such principles aren't arbitrarily chosen, and they aren't dependent on the "personal philosophy" of any particular leader. The notion that we put a president in office so he can seek out people who agree with his "personal philosophy" is fundamentally wrong. Our presidents should be seeking to give judicial and other appointments to men and women who will act in light of the publicly recognized general principles of American life and justice. There are such principles; we know where they are clearly and authoritatively stated -- in our great Declaration of Independence; and we know that we owe our liberty and national happiness in large measure to the great statesmanship of the Founders, of Lincoln, and of others who adhered to those principles and made them such a part of the warp and woof of American life. We know that the great American statesman does not bring new principles to a tired people, even under catchy titles like "compassionate conservatism" -- the great American statesman devotes his energy, ability, and wisdom to conforming himself and this people to the moral principles that gave this nation birth, are older than anything else in the country's soul, and yet retain the power to make us young again with the vigor of virtue and the zeal for justice. The principles that govern ought to be the great principles of the American creed, which constitute our understanding of justice, are the basis of our claims to rights, and define our duty to maintain government by consent and due process. We should start, as did the Founders, with the fundamental principle that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. This is a principle that on the clear face of it makes abortion a travesty. For any American leader who understands the most basic implications of this principle and is willing to apply that understanding, a litmus test is inevitable. Such a leader simply will not admit into the precincts of his judgment and consideration individuals who toss the founding truths of American life aside on issues that are of great import to the nation's integrity. I think that everything George W. Bush has said about abortion has been just what some advisor told him to say because it would get support from all sides. He is working hard to put on a mask that is supposed to placate pro-life sentiment while leaving him room to go as far down the pro-abortion road as he needs to later. In place of the dreaded litmus test, Bush has said that he would nominate Supreme Court Justices based on three criteria: judicial temperament, whether the judges share his "overall philosophy," and whether the judges will "strictly interpret the Constitution as opposed to using the bench to legislate." These are the standard expressions of the squishy right, meaning nothing, and worth nothing. "Overall philosophy" means a vacuous willingness to commit to nothing, stand for nothing, and tolerate everything. Judicial temperament is likewise a conveniently vague and elastic criterion, and strict interpretation can't mean much to people like G.W. Bush, since unless he is interpreting the Constitution in light of a clear set of principles -- a litmus test -- then strict construction is just a phrase, and means nothing. Beyond the specific question of judicial appointments, Bush is no better. He has essentially dismissed the project of seeking a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution because he says the American people won't accept it. This means that he decides what is necessary for the future of the country based on popularity and polls -- just like Bill Clinton. The fact that our abandonment of our most basic moral principles is destroying our conscience, destroying our principles, undermining our sense of moral self-confidence, and thus contributing to the surrender of self-government and rights on all fronts isn't even on his mind. Mr. Bush's statement that he will impose no litmus test shows that in his political role he is fundamentally unprincipled. His entire discussion of abortion includes no references whatsoever to the great American principles that ought to be most telling upon one's judgment when it comes to constitutional issues. He has taken on consultants and advisors who have put into his head what he has to say -- formulae for expressing himself -- that have nothing to do, in fact, with the great context of American life and justice. In this omission Bush is entirely typical of the leaders of our day, who clearly do not measure up to the stature of our great leaders in the past, and yet have greater arrogance. American leaders in the past were humble before our heritage. They acknowledged it and consented to be the instruments for expressing it to the American people in their generation. But today's leaders, who seem to have much less in the way of real stature and capacity, yet have much greater arrogance in that they apparently navigate without any reference to our great founding principles, thinking themselves in that regard superior to the founding generation. They cut loose with whatever it is they think will serve their interests, desperate to be liberated from the constraint of princ iple -- because they know that at some point any real principle may require that they take a stand that isn't in their immediate political interest. This is the real meaning when somebody like G.W. Bush says there will be no litmus test. He means "I shan't allow the requirements of my ambition and political expediency to be governed by any principles whatsoever. So when it gets right down to it, there shall be no sacrifice of my immediate political interest to anything that even vaguely resembles a principle." This refusal to serve our heritage is what distinguishes Bush and most of the rest of the politicians of our day from those who really rose to the level of statesmanship required for great leadership in American life -- the Founders, Lincoln, and even Ronald Reagan. For such men there was a constant need to refer, in one form or another, to the overarching truths that had been expressed and put in place at the beginning of America to guide our conscience and to shape our sense of justice and rights in the context of American life. But what about winning elections? Isn't it time, as my e-mail correspondent asked, that we get serious about winning? Moral conservatives should be very clear about our choice. Liberals are putting enormous hype behind George W. Bush precisely so that the Republicans will once again stupidly nominate somebody who stands for nothing and can't possibly win. However their lying polls hype him -- claiming that he is trouncing Gore by 30 points -- as soon as he gets the nomination they will unveil all the polls telling us how it is tightening up, just the way they have before. The Republican Party will continue to lose ground until it remembers that a lack of conviction leads ultimately to a lack of success. How many times will Republicans have to be smacked over the head with this truth before they finally get it? I would think that two or three defeats at the presidential level, and hanging by our fingernails to a razor-thin margin in the Congress thanks to congressional leaders who practice the "go-along to get-along," "stand for nothing," approach, would teach people a lesson. But the George W. frenzy suggests otherwise. There is a painful irony in the suggestion that we should put aside truth, principle and what is best for the country in order to try to "unite the Republican Party" behind an blank banner, and a man who is willing to fill up his speeches with whatever formula he thinks is going to do the most polling good. The George W. Bush movement really shouldn't object to Bill Clinton. If we are willing to follow people with the Machiavellian, time-serving mentality, Clinton has proven himself to be a master at it. Perhaps we should just repeal all the technicalities about serving third terms and work to have both parties nominate Slick Willie one more time. Then both parties would win. As I have said before, the George W. Bush movement is the Republican wing of the Clinton movement. The real Bush supporters are those who think it is not government's place to stand for those principles which defend the basic rights which come to us from God. They say these are difficult issues, which is what was said a century and more ago about slavery. But slavery was never a difficult issue in light of our Declaration principles, and neither is abortion. When we temporize with abortion, what we are confessing is that we have a greater heart for injustice than we do for American principle. I think that is true of G.W. Bush, and it is why I will not back him. The people to whom Bush gives comfort are the folks who want to act as if there is some doubt about the great issue of principle that confronts us in abortion. That doubt is precisely -- in spite of all his rhetoric to try to appeal to pro-life people -- what G.W. Bush really represents. We can see it also in his flirting with the homosexual lobby, and in other respects. At the level of moral principle, he is rhetoric without principle. He will figure out what words to string together to sound like he is interested, but when it comes to the real test of conviction, we will not be able to count on him. It is worthwhile to reflect on the real challenge that we are faced with right now. The airwaves are filling up quickly with the horse-race chatter of the upcoming presidential decision. One of the things that gets lost these days as we talk about "politics" is that if the debased understanding of our political life that prevails in the media and in the minds of the pundits comes also to prevail in the minds of the electorate at large it will represent a very serious destruction of our citizenship. If the citizens of America come to accept the absolutely systematic trivialization of political life that the chatter of our elites invites, we will have ceased to take serious thought for our own self-government, and the soul of the regime -- government of, by and for a reflective and rational people -- will be gone. This is especially true in dealing with the presidency, where we are talking about a choice that reflects -- and reflects upon -- our national identity in a way that almost nothing else does. We have discovered this, of course, in painful ways in the course of the last several years with Bill Clinton. This is a rather negative illustration, to be sure, because we have gotten a good taste of the depths of the humiliation that can be visited upon our nation by somebody in the White House who lacks the character and integrity to be there. We should reflect on what caused that national humiliation, as the purported Bush juggernaut struggles to gain momentum. Because the sin of Bill Clinton's ambition is heavy upon this country, an ambition that has voided all sense of conscience and integrity so that whatever serves that ambition -- truth, lies, coercion -- he is willing to do. But there is another danger in Bill Clinton. It is the danger that when we approach the presidential choice we will think that it is simply about avoiding that kind of depravity. But simply avoiding a really bad president like Bill Clinton isn't good enough. When this country began, George Washington set a high standard for what we came to associate with the office of President of the United States -- leadership, true statesmanship, and insistence on the courage to stand for the right things for America regardless of whether it is to anyone's personal political advantage. People used to look for this in their leaders. We need to look for it again. Why not make it a litmus test? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ E-MAIL ALAN KEYES | GO TO ALAN KEYES' ARCHIVE CONTACT WND | GO TO PAGE ONE | SEARCH WND ------------------------------------------------------------------------ �1999 WorldNetDaily.com, Inc. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This page was last built 6/18/99; 1:03:02 AM Direct corrections and technical inquiries to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ===== from: http://www.enterstageright.com/0699beatbush.htm <A HREF="http://www.enterstageright.com/0699beatbush.htm">ESR | Republicans - still beating around the "B </A> ----- Republicans - still beating around the "Bush" By Jim Hill Once again, the Republican Party is demonstrating how little they understand the leadership vacuum that is plaguing our nation. This time, the craze is over drafting George W. Bush for president in 2000. What began as an effort by the country club, power wing of the Party has now grown to include some factions of issue-oriented conservatives, who have also fallen prey. The hunger to win the White House in 2000 is so great that many Republicans will accept anyone, just as long as he or she is a "Republican." Like the sports mentality that has permeated our entire culture, winning in politics has become little more than a temporary gratification with no lasting significance. This drop in standards can be attributed to several things, one of which is the lack of core values among many of the most ardent party loyalists. Even some of the evangelical Christians of the so-called Religious Right, people who supposedly have a higher commitment to principle than political expediency, have indicated a willingness to follow. Why am I against joining with other party members and backing the Bush campaign to capture the White House in 2000? In one simple sentence, George W. Bush, better than any other individual, is an ideal reflection of the Republican Party as it is today. And that is why he should not be taken seriously by anyone committed to principle. Republicans today, resembling their Democrat opponents, are driven more by the fickle whims of society than by core ideologies. The Republican leadership has not taken a serious stand on any issue since the 1995 budget battle where, ultimately, one concession after another was surrendered to the demands of President Clinton. There was a time when smaller, limited government was the uniting theme in the Republican Party. By their actions in recent years, however, the Republicans have even lost their claim to this principle. Today, after five years of Republican control of Congress, government has steadily grown larger and become more intrusive. Not a single federal department has been eliminated, downsized, or even had its budget reduced in the slightest, in spite of many campaign promises to the contrary. And Americans suffer even more encroachments upon their liberties as the GOP-led Congress continues to pump steroids into the federal monster with bigger budgets and more federal programs. Today, there is not a single issue on which Republicans can legitimately claim either unity or victory. It should come as no surprise that such a wandering generality has rallied around George W. Bush as the ideal man to be their leader. One need only examine Bush through his own words to arrive at such a conclusion. Project Vote Smart polls candidates at all levels of government, nationwide, and publishes responses to their comprehensive questionnaire on their web site at www.vote-smart.org. Bush's 1998 gubernatorial survey reveals a man very much in love with big government and in search of a consistent set of values. (What American president does this sound like?) In addition to his politically correct responses on abortion, affirmative action, gun control, and state funded health care, Bush reveals his true identity when it comes to education. He states, "My number one priority is improving public education." Yet, when you run down the list, it's obvious he believes that only government can perform such a feat. He advocates an increase in state funds for teachers and school construction, state-mandated standards (buzz phrase for state-mandated controls), and bilingual education. Nowhere on this survey does he suggest government loosening its stranglehold on this vital industry and allowing the only proven solution, the free market, to reign. Still, some conservatives are falling all over themselves to line up in support of this man, much like they did in 1996 with the equally bland candidate, Bob Dole. Is this what has become of freedom? Is this our modern day version of "eternal vigilance?" Suppose a giant dragon was threatening our lives and we desperately wanted to arm a knight to go out and slay the dragon. Would we even consider someone who advocates stealing food from our very own tables to keep the dragon alive? Would we be this desperate to "win"? Unfortunately, our situation is not a fairy tale. The dragon is real. Even worse, so is this year's anointed knight. Nevertheless, the question always comes back to me: "Yeah, but had you rather have him, or Al Gore?" The assumption is that it's better to make a little progress under Bush than none at all under Gore. It's a good question. And it's a fair question. But it's an incorrect assumption and ignores the much deeper issue. We're all familiar with the phenomenon of boiling a frog in water. Put a frog in cold water and heat it up slowly; the frog will hold still and allow himself to be boiled to death. Heat the water up rapidly and the frog will sense the difference and jump out. This is what happened in 1994. We "jumped out." The Contract with America, while not the most ideal legislation, was still a successful campaign, due in large part to resistance to the Clinton administration's sudden, big government policies. However, since 1995, the water has been heating up slowly. We have tolerated a steady onslaught of big government programs, often at the hands of the Republicans, who we thought were our allies, and few seem to be aware of the bubbles that are breaking the surface all around us. As long as we continue this distorted logic of "he's not as bad as the other guy," we'll forever maintain the climate that we have now, where liberals and moderates think they have a fighting chance of obtaining the GOP nomination. So far, history proves that they do. This not only applies in the presidential race but all the way down the ticket. The question is not Al Gore or George W. Bush; the question is whether or not we want to continue this trend. If all we want is a President in the White House with an "R" beside his name, the polls are telling us that any "R" will do, take your pick. If this is our goal, we can be certain that the water temperature will continue to rise taking us closer to that boiling point. If we want someone who stands for something and has a solid belief system, then the choices are fewer. If we want someone who will help us slay the dragon and bring us closer to the Constitutional government for which our Founders fought, then the answer may not be found in the 2000 election. And it may not be found in either of the two monopoly parties. Jim Hill can be reached at [EMAIL PROTECTED] and make sure to visit his web site at http://www.1776web.net/ < Home > Site Map Email ESR Conservative Site of the Day Previous article | Home | Next article � 1999, Enter Stage Right and/or its creators. All rights reserved. ----- Aloha, He'Ping, Om, Shalom, Salaam. Em Hotep, Peace Be, Omnia Bona Bonis, All My Relations. Adieu, Adios, Aloha. Amen. Roads End Kris DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections 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, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== 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
