FAQs
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Question – Bob Inglis is currently S.C. Congressman for the 4th District. Is he a conservative or a liberal?
Answer – The best way of determining a Congressmen’s political leanings is to look at his/her voting record. Congressman Inglis’ vote on eight pieces of legislation follows. You can draw your own conclusion.
- Voted against amendment to prohibit funds for activities in Uzbekistan. The administration out-sourced torture of “enemy combatants” to this country which has killed at least two victims by being boiled to death. HR 2863, Fiscal 2006 Defense Appropriations, June 20, 2005
- Voted against the Hayworth amendment which would decrease the U.S. contribution to the U.N. by 218 million dollars. HR 2862, Fiscal 2006 Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations. June 15, 2005
- Voted against the Tancredo Amendment to prohibit the use of funds in the bill to include provisions in any trade agreement that would increase the number of aliens permitted into the US as non-immigrants or permanent residents. HR 2862, June 16, 2005
- Voted against the Paul amendment to HR 3010, Fiscal 2006 Labor-HHS Education Appropriations that would prohibit the use of funds to create or implement any mental health screening program. June 24, 2005
- Voted against the Hinchey amendment to HR 3010 that would prohibit the use of funds in the bill to distribute the personal information of Medicare beneficiaries to private companies for marketing purposes. June 24, 2005
- Voted for final passage of HR 3010 which includes funding for HHS “Family Planning” services which distribute free birth control pills to minor children at local county health departments even over the objection of their parents. June 24, 2005
- Voted to trash the fourth amendment which protected US citizens against unreasonable search and seizure. HR 3199, Patriot Act Reauthorization.
- Voted against the Garrett amendment to prohibit the use of funds in the bill to build or improve infrastructure on private property obtained through the power of eminent domain for private development. HR 3058, Fiscal 2006. Transportation-Treasury-Housing Appropriations. June 30, 2005
- Is the Republican Party still conservative?
The answer to this question was covered in an article by Dr. Chuck Baldwin dated September 12, 2003 entitled The Lesser of Two Evils is N o Longer Lesser.
“Those who believe electing Republicans is going to make a significant difference in the direction of the country need to open their eyes to what Republicans are actually doing.
Consider the courageous stand of Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore to resist a tyrannical and unconstitutional order from a federal judge to remove a monument of the Ten Commandments from the Alabama Judicial Building. Instead of supporting the brave Chief Justice, Republican leaders in his state betrayed Roy Moore, ignored the U.S. and Alabama constitutions, and threw their support behind the federal judge.
It was a Republican governor and a Republican attorney general who abandoned Judge Moore. Seven of the eight Alabama Supreme Court justices who voted to suspend Judge Moore were elected as Republicans. Beyond the state of Alabama, two of the judges of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals which ruled against Judge Moore were Republicans.
Furthermore, President G.W. Bush’s chief consultant and campaign manager, Karl Rove, was also campaign consultant to Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor. Rove was also a campaign consultant to the Alabama lawyer whom Roy Moore defeated in the race for Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. Do you not see a pattern here?
It was also the Republican governor of Alabama Bob Riley who promoted a huge billion dollar tax increase for his state. Unfortunately, this kind of chicanery and skullduggery is the norm, not the exception, for the Republican Party.
Recently, a Washington Post report said, ‘The era of big government, if it ever went away, has returned full-throttle under President Bush.
A report released by the Brookings Institution think tank and New York University said the ‘true size of the federal work force, which includes employees for federal contractors and grant recipients, grew by more than one million, to 12.1 million, from October 1999 to October 2002.
In fact, G.W. Bush and his fellow Republicans in Congress have become the biggest spenders in Washington, D.C., since the Johnson administration. Furthermore, their efforts regarding constitutional government, individual freedom, and family issues are not any better.
The Patriot Act pushed through by President Bush and congressional leaders just might be the most egregious example of Orwellian-style government in U.S. history. Its abridgements against constitutional restrictions to federal encroachments of personal freedom rival anything that emanates from any communist country.
We are also watching Republicans around the country fawning over the candidacy of Arnold Schwarzenegger for California governor, even though Schwarzenegger is pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control, and pro-illegal immigration. All that seems to matter is that he has an ‘R’ behind his name. His commitment to the Constitution and to conservative principles means nothing!
The sellout by Republicans at both the state and national levels cannot be ignored or defended! They need to be seen for what they are: traitors to the cause they claim to represent! As such, they are more dangerous to the future of America than are Democrats. A Benedict Arnold is infinitely more dangerous than a General Cornwallis. One is dressed in a devil’s suit and attacks you from the front; and the other one wears angel wings, then stabs you in the back.
If Republicans in a state such as Alabama cannot muster the courage to stand with a patriot such as Judge Roy Moore, how can we expect Republicans in the less conservative areas to do any better? The answer is, we can’t and shouldn’t.
The time has come for conservatives to abandon the Republican Party and to start supporting principled candidates from parties such as the Constitution Party, because the lesser of two evils is no longer lesser.”
- Is the federal government compromising our national sovereignty?
Dr. Baldwin discuses this topic in an article released on August 11, 2004 entitled, President Bush continues to Surrender U.S. Sovereignty to International Entities.
“Whatever their differences seem to be, both Democrat and Republican presidents seem to be agreed that America must surrender its national sovereignty and become part of an international, world government. Unfortunately, G.W. Bush is no exception.
President Bush’s track record on world government issues is perhaps the most egregious of any president in modern memory. Even Bill Clinton could not match the internationalist propensities of G.W. Bush.
Most of us are already aware (or should be) of President Bush’s desire to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. We listened as he told the American people that our invasion of Iraq was for the purpose of securing the ‘peace and credibility of the United Nations.’ We watched as he revoked former President Ronald Reagan’s policy and brought the United States back under UNESCO. It is safe to say the G.W. Bush is the most pro-world government president America has ever had.
However, if you thought President Bush had done about all he could do to abandon America’s cherished doctrines of national sovereignty and independence, you need to hold on to your hat.
CNS News reported on August 9 that the Bush State Department has invited the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which is based in Vienna, Austria, to monitor this year’s U.S. presidential election. Such action was unthinkable, even unbearable, to our country’s founders and should be similarly regarded by every lover of freedom in our country today!
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) rightly warned, ‘It’s exactly the type of entanglement that results from our continued insistence on being a member of the U.N. and having an internationalist foreign policy.’
Tom DeWeese, president of the American Policy Center, is equally outraged. He said, ‘[President] Bush continues to give conservatives the rhetoric of sovereignty, independence and strength of the United States, and he continues to give the [opposite] actions. It’s just outrageous this administration would allow this to happen.
Outrageous’ is a good word for President Bush’s decision to allow any international institution to serve as monitors over any U.S. election. The question begs to be asked, ‘What will Mr. Bush do if the OCSE decides something is amiss with our election process? Will he allow them to veto or set aside the will of the American people? To what degree would this foreign entity be allowed to exert its will?
Because of internationalist presidents such as G.W. Bush, the United States is already held hostage to a plethora of global institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the United Nations, NATO, The World Trade organization, etc., ad infinitum.
In defending the State Department’s decision to invite OSCE to supervise our presidential elections this year, Assistant Secretary of State Paul Kelly said, ‘to remain vibrant and strong, democracies must ensure that citizens have the ability to exercise their vote in free, fair and transparent elections.
According to CNS News, ‘The State Department official had no additional details on the size and the composition of the ‘mission,’ and he did not provide any information on what countries will provide the election monitors.
I must assume that Mr. Kelly does not believe that the American people are capable of providing free, fair and transparent elections on their own. I must also assume that Mr. Kelly and his fellow travelers at the State Department and in the White House do not believe that the United States is a sovereign, independent nation and does not need the help or especially the oversight of any international body!
It sure would be nice to have people in Washington, D.C., that, like Washington and Jefferson, really and truly despised entangling alliances with foreign nations! In order to find such people, however, it seems obvious that, with precious few exceptions, one must look someplace other than the Republican and Democratic parties.
For those who are interested, there is a political party that still believes in America’s founding principles, including the principle of independence from entangling alliances with foreign nations. That party is the Constitution Party and Michael Peroutka is its presidential candidate this year. His web site is www.peroutka2004.com.
Anyone who truly values independence and freedom might want to take a hard look at the Constitution Party web address: www.constitutionparty.com and at Michael Peroutka’s candidacy, because if we leave it to the Democrats and Republicans, there will very soon be very little freedom or independence left in this country.”
- Which political party is wasting the most tax payers' money?
Dr. Baldwin, in an article entitled, Republican Party is Outspending Democrats, on March 30, 2004 gave the answer to this question as follows:
“With the Republican Party in virtual control of the entire federal government, federal spending has escalated to the highest level in American history. Not only have Republicans done nothing to decrease spending, they have actually outspent Democrats. Those who believe that the Republican Party actually supports less government and less spending must be regarded as among the most deceived and gullible people on the planet!
For example, since President Bush took office, federal outlays have increased some 24%. A budget surplus of more than $200 billion has turned into a budget deficit of over $700 billion by the end of 2004. Furthermore, our national debt now totals in excess of $7 trillion.
Beyond that, President Bush and a Republican controlled Congress have superintended over the largest trade deficits in history. Our trade deficit closed the year 2003 at $489 billion. Under Republican control, America set trade deficit records with Mexico, Canada, the European Union, China, and Central and South America.
President Bush has also proposed increasing federal expenditures for socialist/welfare-type programs such as Medicare, the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), and a host of others.
Bill Moyers rightly observed that ‘G.W. bush is spending non-existent money faster than anybody in modern times. He’s expanding the power of the state with not just homeland security and the war on terror abroad but with one extension of domestic agency after another.
It is more than interesting that to date President Bush has not vetoed a single spending bill. Not one. Beyond that, he has proposed increasing the national debt limit by some $1 trillion.
Federal spending is so bad under the Bush administration that a recent Rasmussen survey concluded more people trust Democrat John Kerry to control government spending than President Bush by 42% to 33% (source: Rasmussen Reports, survey of 1,000 likely voters, Feb. 6-7, 2004).
However, it seems that conservatives can only focus on President Bush’s support for tax reductions. Obviously, tax reductions are always appealing to conservatives (including me), but to reduce taxed without reducing spending is a cruel hoax! More than that, it is blatantly dishonest!
It is time for the American people, especially conservatives, to honestly face the spending question. If we are going to tolerate and condone increased federal spending, we must be willing to finance it with increased taxes. If we truly want to reduce taxes, we must also demand decreased spending. It’s as simple as that! Anything less is nothing but an elaborate display of smoke and mirrors, and the politicians who put on this display are nothing more than duplicitous charlatans, a Republican Party label notwithstanding.
From a strict economic perspective, the country would probably be better off with a Democrat in the White House and Republicans in control of Congress. At least then there would be a degree of gridlock which would somewhat slow down the growth of federal spending.
Of course, the best idea of all would be to elect a true fiscal conservative as President. However, to find such a candidate one would have to look outside the two major parties. The one that comes to my mind is the Constitution Party. Conservatives should be flocking to it in droves, because if they continue to support GWB, they will be culpable to spiraling spending that will eventually collapse our economy.”
- Is President Bush encouraging Hispanics to illegally enter the United States?
Dr. Baldwin responded to this question on April 23, 2004 in an article entitles, Bush Amnesty Plan Producing Huge Increases of Illegal Aliens as follows:
“Recent press reports say that illegal immigration is skyrocketing since President Bush announced his amnesty plan. For example, World Net Daily reported, ‘U.S. Border Patrol officials report a 15 percent increase in the use of fraudulent documents at the world’s busiest land border crossing [San Ysidro].’
The WND report continued by saying that Bush’s amnesty program ‘represents an invitation for more illegal immigration.’ The report also said, ‘More than half of those caught using phony documents say the president’s offer of de facto amnesty motivated them to attempt to sneak in the United States.
A Washington Times report said basically the same thing: ‘The number of illegal aliens being apprehended on the southwestern border has jumped 25 percent in the first three months of 2004 compared with last year, and some are blaming President Bush’s immigration proposal in January for enticing immigrants across the border.
The Times quoted Rep. Tom Tancredo, Colorado Republican and chairman of the House Immigration Reform Caucus, as saying, ‘It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to tell you the president’s speech was the catalyst for lots of folks to make their way north and try to get into this country in order to get what they accurately believe to be amnesty.
In two Arizona sectors, Yuma and Tucson, illegal immigration is up 60 percent and 51 percent, respectively. Apprehensions are up 222 percent in the Yuma sector alone. In fact, six of the nine southwestern sectors saw increases compared to last year.
The question must be asked, ‘Did not President Bush realize that his amnesty proposal would result in dramatic increases in illegal immigration? And, if so, why would he propose such an absurd idea, especially during a time when America is fighting a war against terrorism?
After all, in the name of national security, President Bush pushed the Patriot Act through Congress and is seeking to expand the act and to even give the act permanency. He has done this in spite of the fact that the Patriot Act violates several constitutional freedoms of American citizens.
In effect, what President Bush is doing is asking Americans to surrender their liberties while at the same time offering freedom to criminals from other countries. The president’s actions in this regard are so obviously inane it’s hard to imagine the American people would tolerate it. But that is exactly what they appear to be doing.
On the issue of illegal immigration, there is nary a difference between the two major parties. Bush and his fellow Republicans want illegal aliens in the country so their big business contributors can continue to hire cheap labor. Democrats want illegal aliens in the country in the hopes that they will obtain voting privileges, as most of them would tend to vote Democratic. Of course, President Bush is also hopeful that his overtures to millions of illegal Mexican aliens will endear him, and the Republican Party, to the Hispanic vote.
In short, both parties are willing to compromise the integrity of our nation’s immigration laws (laws which are intended to protect the people of the United States, by the way) and our national security for political and economic benefit. And as long as the American people continue to believe that there is some vast difference between the two major parties in Washington, D.C. and continue to blindly support one or the other of these two parties, there will be no meaningful solution to any major problem, including the immigration problem, that confronts our country.”
- Who is the biggest spender in Washington?
Dr. Chuck Baldwin on October 14, 2005 answers this question as follows:
“After nearly five years in office, the record is clear: President George W. Bush ranks among the biggest spending presidents in American history! With such a record, no person can honestly categorize G.W. Bush as a fiscal conservative. By comparison, Dubya's spending habits make Bill Clinton look like a conservative!
Writing for the Financial Times (7/15/05), Jim Cooper stated, ‘President George W. Bush has failed to impose discipline on congressional spending. His Republican Congress has, unsurprisingly, become headstrong and spendthrift as a result.’
Cooper continued by saying, ‘Mr. Bush is the first US president since James Garfield in 1881 to accept every bill that Congress sends him as if it were perfect. And Garfield only served six months in office.’
Again, Cooper wrote, ‘Most of the strong presidents in American history vetoed dozens, sometimes hundreds, of bills. Mr. Bush has vetoed none.’
Beyond that, according to Stephen Slivinski of the libertarian Cato Institute, ‘[President] Bush has presided over the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending since Lyndon B.
Johnson. Even after excluding spending on defense and homeland security, Mr. Bush is still the biggest-spending president in 30 years.’ However, the story is even worse than that.
Jim Cooper notes that ‘Not only has Mr. Bush failed to veto any legislation, he has not rescinded any outlays. This lesser-known power has been used by every president since Richard Nixon except, again, for George W. Bush. Rescissions allow presidents to cut any spending programmes within larger bills as long as simple majorities in both Houses of Congress agree.’
Although this White House pretends it is powerless, former president Bill Clinton sought to rescind 163 spending items totaling $6.6 billion, and won 111 from a divided Congress, saving $3.6 billion. Mr. Bush's father tried to rescind 169 items totaling $13.3 billion, winning 34 from a divided Congress, saving $2.3 billion. The champion is Ronald Reagan, who tried to cut 602 spending items costing $43.4 billion and won 214, again from a divided Congress, thus saving $15.6 billion.’
Cooper summarized by saying, ‘Mr. Bush has rescinded no programmes, saving no dollars, despite complete Republican control of Congress. The fiscal consequences of one-party government are dire. Today, there is no adult supervision of Congress. No wonder congressional 'earmarks'-pork-barrel
spending in a member's own state or district-have multiplied to almost $24 billion annually. Mr. Bush is aiding and abetting the most expensive political logrolling in American history.’
There can now be no argument on the subject. Anyone attempting to claim that G.W. Bush and the Republicans in Congress believe in limiting government spending is pixilated! George Bush consumes tax dollars the way he once consumed booze! And, on the whole, his Republican buddies in Congress are perhaps even bigger spending sops than he is! They don't belong in Washington; they belong in SA (Spenders Anonymous).”