With Republicans Like These, Who Needs Democrats?

[pisshead]

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/chuckwagon.html

With Republicans Like These, Who Needs Democrats?


By Chuck Baldwin


Food For Thought From The Chuck Wagon
May 4, 2005 My friend Howard Phillips recently wrote a column outlining the philosophy and historical track record of the Republican Party since George W. Bush became President. Sad to say, even a cursory review of this record reveals the fact that the Republican Party in Washington, D.C., has become little more than a carbon copy of the Democratic Party.

Phillips writes, "Sadly, the GOP's elected and appointed officials conform themselves almost without exception to that which Mr. Bush espouses, including:

a. an expanded Federal role in education,

b. record setting subsidies for pro-abortion and pro- homosexual organizations,

c. increased funding for the United Nations,

d. the attempted extension of Bill Clinton's assault weapons ban (blocked in Congress),

e. social Security benefits for illegal aliens who have returned to Mexico,

f. the ongoing reduction of the U.S. Navy (which now stands at 289 ships, compared to 600 under Ronald Reagan),

g. amnesty for illegal aliens,

h. nominees for the Federal judiciary and the Office of Attorney General who espouse the doctrine that Roe v. Wade is 'settled law',

i. support for Food and Drug Administration policies approving the abortion 'pill', RU-486, which has been used to kill scores of thousands of unborn children,

j. overturning Ronald Reagan's decision to withdraw from UNESCO,

k. increased funding for the National Endowment for the Arts,

l. multi-billion dollar support for the Federal Legal Services Corporation and its 25,000 left-wing legal activists,

m. murder-abetting assistance to the Communist government in Angola,

n. historically high multi-trillion dollar fiscal deficits and trade deficits,

o. a multi-trillion dollar Medicare entitlement program,

p. a $20 million 'New Freedom' program to evaluate the mental health of 53 million students in the government schools.

q. enactment of the McCain-Feingold campaign regulation law which criminalizes free speech,

r. support for the U.N. Law of the Sea Treaty (UNLOST) which President Reagan rejected,

s. endorsement of homosexual 'civil unions',

t. promotion of FTAA, NAFTA, CAFTA, and the WTO,

u. a too broadly drawn Patriot Act with its outrageous 'sneak and peek' provisions,

and many more things, a significant proportion of which would have been blocked by a Republican Congress had a Democrat President proposed them." Of course, most conservatives have chosen to ignore or even deny these facts. The only answer they seem to come up with is, "Think how bad it would be if Democrats were in charge." However, with Republicans like these, who needs Democrats? © Chuck Baldwin

pisshead Reviewed by pisshead on 05-03-2005. With Republicans Like These, Who Needs Democrats? http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/chuckwagon.html With Republicans Like These, Who Needs Democrats? By Chuck Baldwin Food For Thought From The Chuck Wagon May 4, 2005 My friend Howard Phillips recently wrote a column outlining the philosophy and historical track record of the Republican Party since George W. Bush became President. Sad to say, even a cursory review of this record reveals the fact that the Republican Party in Washington, D.C., has become little more than a Rating: 5

[bhallg2k]

a. an expanded Federal role in education (While severely underfunding the mandates of No Child Left Behind. Besides, all that is being done with NCLB is that kids are becoming really good test-takers while losing out on learning a wider variety of subjects)

b. record setting subsidies for pro-abortion and pro- homosexual organizations (Those "subsidies" are for non-descriminatory clinics that care for low-income people)

c. increased funding for the United Nations (It's not an icrease in funsing. We've owed hundreds of millions in dues for years without any action at all. So we're finally paying up)

d. the attempted extension of Bill Clinton's assault weapons ban (blocked in Congress) (Do you really need an uzi? And why are those on the U.S. terrorist watch list STILL ALLOWED TO BUY GUNS IN AMERICA?)

e. social Security benefits for illegal aliens who have returned to Mexico (That's the GOP attempt to win votes from Latinos)

f. the ongoing reduction of the U.S. Navy (which now stands at 289 ships, compared to 600 under Ronald Reagan) (Last time I checked, terrorists weren't deploying too many carriers)

g. amnesty for illegal aliens (See E)

h. nominees for the Federal judiciary and the Office of Attorney General who espouse the doctrine that Roe v. Wade is 'settled law' (Has been since 1973)

i. support for Food and Drug Administration policies approving the abortion 'pill', RU-486, which has been used to kill scores of thousands of unborn children (RU-486 is NOT an abortion bill. It prevents the fertilization of an egg before a fetus is even created)

j. overturning Ronald Reagan's decision to withdraw from UNESCO (The whole idea behine UNESCO is sort of a "1st Amendment for the World." What's wrong with that?)

k. increased funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (So?)

l. multi-billion dollar support for the Federal Legal Services Corporation and its 25,000 left-wing legal activists (who happen to serve extremely poor people in the justice system)

m. murder-abetting assistance to the Communist government in Angola (The U.S. foreign policy has always been self-serving regardless of the consequences, see: 1980's Iraq)

n. historically high multi-trillion dollar fiscal deficits and trade deficits (Right on with that one, only Republicans would think to cut taxes at every step no matter how it adds up, or more precisely, doesn't)

o. a multi-trillion dollar Medicare entitlement program (Would you like to be the one that says, "You're sick and poor? Aww, too bad")

p. a $20 million 'New Freedom' program to evaluate the mental health of 53 million students in the government schools (I don't get that either)

q. enactment of the McCain-Feingold campaign regulation law which criminalizes free speech (More like, levels the playing field so that huge corporations don't run the table during elections with massive political contributions)

r. support for the U.N. Law of the Sea Treaty (UNLOST) which President Reagan rejected (As it stands, the areas of the sea affected are under no ones control at all and the treaty does nothing to change territorial waters)

s. endorsement of homosexual 'civil unions' (The US Constitution calls for equal protection under the law. So if straight people can be married, so can gays, at least legally. It's up to churches whether or not they perform the ceremonies)

t. promotion of FTAA, NAFTA, CAFTA, and the WTO (Which in the end, could prevent outsourcing of US jobs if all member-states act responsibly and honestly)

u. a too broadly drawn Patriot Act with its outrageous 'sneak and peek' provisions (I agree with the criticism of this. Scrap the Patriot Act altogether)



Wow, I've defending republicans for the first time in my life. Such a weird experience.

[Stedric]

The Patriot Act has a built in defense system...if you disagree with it then you aren't a Patriot. Stupid, really.

[amsterdam]

the world is a different place after 9/11.this is a war unlike any other in history.sometimes you have to sacrafice.get over it.

[F L E S H]

"get over it"

I think you should put that in your sig, amsterdam... It seems to be your favorite (and least effective and annoying, I might add) comeback

bhallg2k, thanks for putting this guy in his place. It's too easy to take anything out of context and say 'oh look! republicans are really democrats and democrats are really republicans!'

And don't worry, you're not actually defending republicans, you're just setting records straight...

[amsterdam]

i like the patriot act.i know there needs to be some modifacations but scrapping the whole thing is funny as hell.

[pisshead]

to think that just one side of this fake political system is going to save the country or do anything different or uphold the constitution is just a little naive.

but if it helps people to think that...fine, i don't care. i, personally, don't see a difference between them.

george bush has basically done what clinton did, except fund it more, make government bigger, and give us more debt. he's not really conservative.

[bhallg2k]

Yeah, I just love The Patriot Act. I mean, who cares if the government can break into my house, look at my library records and even listen in on my telephone conversations all without my knowledge. Hell, they don't even have to show a judge suspicion of illegal activity.

Just go ahead and bend that 4th Amendment right over and fuck it really hard.

As far as "getting over it," that we have to make sacrifices; at what point do you think our "sacrifices" take away the very meaning of being an American?

Anybody ever read "1984?"

[EverydayJunglist]

nicely put bhallg2k. It's pretty hard to argue that.

[amsterdam]

Yeah, I just love The Patriot Act. I mean, who cares if the government can break into my house, look at my library records and even listen in on my telephone conversations all without my knowledge. Hell, they don't even have to show a judge suspicion of illegal activity.

Just go ahead and bend that 4th Amendment right over and fuck it really hard.

As far as "getting over it," that we have to make sacrifices; at what point do you think our "sacrifices" take away the very meaning of being an American?

Anybody ever read "1984?"

you are the PERFECT example of democrat lies and bullshit.have you even actually read the patriot act??(dont just say you have to seem cool)

THE GOVT. CANNOT LOOK AT YOUR LIBRARY CARDS AND SEE WHAT YOU CHECKED OUT.THAT IS A FACT.