Thursday, October 28, 2004
Bush endorses homosexual civil unions & Univseral Salvation
There's a feeling amongst evangelicals that George W. Bush is one of us -- that he too is an evangelical Christian. Most conservative Christians feel a kinship with him as a result.
But is he really? I don't know the answer to that question; that's between George Bush and God.
But I do know that homosexual marriage is a big motivating issue for evangelicals and the Bush administration has chosen to make it an issue by advocating a Constitutional amendment to "protect marriage."
I also know that George Bush claims to be a Christian, and that he has said that the most influential philosopher in his life was Jesus Christ -- the very same Jesus Christ who said, "I am The Way, The Truth, and The Life, no man comes to the Father but by Me."
Apparently, George Bush disagrees both with his concerned evangelical allies and his favorite philosopher...
GOOD MORNING AMERICA
October 26, 2004
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW
CHARLES GIBSON, ABC NEWS
All right. Thanks, Tony. We're gonna turn again now to our exclusive interview with President George W. Bush. Everybody knows it's now one of the tightest presidential races ever. And over the weekend, I had some time to spend with the president and the first lady at their ranch down in Crawford, Texas. And we covered a wide range of personal, sensitive subjects, including religion and their views of homosexuality.
-----------------------------
CHARLES GIBSON
I want to ask you about one social issue, 'cause you gave an answer that I thought was really interesting in the third debate. Bob Schieffer asked you if you thought homosexuals were born that way ...
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH, UNITED STATES
Yeah.
CHARLES GIBSON
... or became that way. And you said you didn't know.
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH
Right. I don't.
CHARLES GIBSON
So, the possibility, it's a nature-nurture argument. So, the possibility exists in your mind that it could be nature.
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH
Sure.
CHARLES GIBSON
They could be born that way. If that's the case, just for sake of argument, that's an unalterable characteristic for them. That's like being black or being a woman. So, how can we deny them rights in any way to a civil union that would allow, give them the same economic rights or health rights or other things?
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH
I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's when a state chooses to do so.
CHARLES GIBSON
But the (Republican Party) platform opposes it.
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH
Well, I don't. I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights. And I strongly believe that marriage ought to be defined as between, a union between a man and a woman.
CHARLES GIBSON
So, the Republican platform on that point, as far as you're concerned, is wrong?
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH
Right.
CHARLES GIBSON
How about the constitutional amendment on marriage?
LAURA BUSH, FIRST LADY
Well, I think it gives the United States a chance to debate the issue. I think it's an issue that people want to talk about. But with respect to everyone involved, and with respect to people.
CHARLES GIBSON
Do you agree with him on the constitutional amendment?
LAURA BUSH
I'm not really sure about it. I think it's important to have the debate.
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH
Look, if, if you're, if you're interested in preserving marriage as a union between a man and a woman, there is one way to do so without the courts making the decisions, that's through the constitutional process.
......
CHARLES GIBSON
Do we all worship the same God, Christian and Muslim?
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH
I think we do.
......
CHARLES GIBSON
Do Christians and non-Christians and Muslims go to heaven in your mind?
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH
Yes, they do. We have different routes of getting there. But I will, I, I want you to understand, I want your listeners to understand, I don't get to decide who goes to heaven. The almighty God decides who goes to heaven. And I am on my personal walk.
There's a feeling amongst evangelicals that George W. Bush is one of us -- that he too is an evangelical Christian. Most conservative Christians feel a kinship with him as a result.
But is he really? I don't know the answer to that question; that's between George Bush and God.
But I do know that homosexual marriage is a big motivating issue for evangelicals and the Bush administration has chosen to make it an issue by advocating a Constitutional amendment to "protect marriage."
I also know that George Bush claims to be a Christian, and that he has said that the most influential philosopher in his life was Jesus Christ -- the very same Jesus Christ who said, "I am The Way, The Truth, and The Life, no man comes to the Father but by Me."
Apparently, George Bush disagrees both with his concerned evangelical allies and his favorite philosopher...
GOOD MORNING AMERICA
October 26, 2004
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW
CHARLES GIBSON, ABC NEWS
All right. Thanks, Tony. We're gonna turn again now to our exclusive interview with President George W. Bush. Everybody knows it's now one of the tightest presidential races ever. And over the weekend, I had some time to spend with the president and the first lady at their ranch down in Crawford, Texas. And we covered a wide range of personal, sensitive subjects, including religion and their views of homosexuality.
-----------------------------
CHARLES GIBSON
I want to ask you about one social issue, 'cause you gave an answer that I thought was really interesting in the third debate. Bob Schieffer asked you if you thought homosexuals were born that way ...
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH, UNITED STATES
Yeah.
CHARLES GIBSON
... or became that way. And you said you didn't know.
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH
Right. I don't.
CHARLES GIBSON
So, the possibility, it's a nature-nurture argument. So, the possibility exists in your mind that it could be nature.
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH
Sure.
CHARLES GIBSON
They could be born that way. If that's the case, just for sake of argument, that's an unalterable characteristic for them. That's like being black or being a woman. So, how can we deny them rights in any way to a civil union that would allow, give them the same economic rights or health rights or other things?
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH
I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's when a state chooses to do so.
CHARLES GIBSON
But the (Republican Party) platform opposes it.
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH
Well, I don't. I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights. And I strongly believe that marriage ought to be defined as between, a union between a man and a woman.
CHARLES GIBSON
So, the Republican platform on that point, as far as you're concerned, is wrong?
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH
Right.
CHARLES GIBSON
How about the constitutional amendment on marriage?
LAURA BUSH, FIRST LADY
Well, I think it gives the United States a chance to debate the issue. I think it's an issue that people want to talk about. But with respect to everyone involved, and with respect to people.
CHARLES GIBSON
Do you agree with him on the constitutional amendment?
LAURA BUSH
I'm not really sure about it. I think it's important to have the debate.
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH
Look, if, if you're, if you're interested in preserving marriage as a union between a man and a woman, there is one way to do so without the courts making the decisions, that's through the constitutional process.
......
CHARLES GIBSON
Do we all worship the same God, Christian and Muslim?
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH
I think we do.
......
CHARLES GIBSON
Do Christians and non-Christians and Muslims go to heaven in your mind?
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH
Yes, they do. We have different routes of getting there. But I will, I, I want you to understand, I want your listeners to understand, I don't get to decide who goes to heaven. The almighty God decides who goes to heaven. And I am on my personal walk.
Monday, October 25, 2004
James Leroy Wilson, a columnist for LewRockwell.com and The Partial Observer, explained to readers readers in his weekend column how to Get Through to Bush’s Christian Loyalists. Here's what he wrote...
"The case against Bush must come from a Christian, speaking as a Christian. Jim Babka comes to the rescue here, with a CD "Why Conservative Christians are Re-evaluating George W. Bush."
"Far from calling on Christians to vote Democrat, Babka lays out a tragic record of lies, hypocrisies, and cowardly acts by the President, including a sorry record that may most shock Bush’s core constituency on issues of gay rights, abortion, and religion itself. It is an excellent resource, primarily because it is spoken with passion and moral and logical clarity. Listening to the truth is more powerful than just reading it, and Babka hits it out of the park. Babka is more persuasive in his case against Bush than most of us can be. Real conservatives and Christian libertarians should take advantage in these last days before the election to listen to, learn from, and circulate Babka’s message.
"Many things in our country just continue to get worse and worse. They get worse under Democrats, they get worse under Republicans. The loyalty to the President is strong, and appeals to logic and reason won’t often suffice. Followers of the Bush Cult will not trust libertarian writers, or the mainstream media that bring tidings of great sadness. It’s all a conspiracy against morality, decency, and Christianity. They will need to hear, not read, but hear, the truth from a fellow Christian. I don’t know if there’s any other way."
Wilson's link to our CultureRepair.com website resulted in a one-day Alexa ranking of 39,998 with a reach of 20 per million Internet users. But that's not the best news. Orders were placed for a total of 357 CDs. I pray they all get listened to -- that they touch hearts and change minds.
"The case against Bush must come from a Christian, speaking as a Christian. Jim Babka comes to the rescue here, with a CD "Why Conservative Christians are Re-evaluating George W. Bush."
"Far from calling on Christians to vote Democrat, Babka lays out a tragic record of lies, hypocrisies, and cowardly acts by the President, including a sorry record that may most shock Bush’s core constituency on issues of gay rights, abortion, and religion itself. It is an excellent resource, primarily because it is spoken with passion and moral and logical clarity. Listening to the truth is more powerful than just reading it, and Babka hits it out of the park. Babka is more persuasive in his case against Bush than most of us can be. Real conservatives and Christian libertarians should take advantage in these last days before the election to listen to, learn from, and circulate Babka’s message.
"Many things in our country just continue to get worse and worse. They get worse under Democrats, they get worse under Republicans. The loyalty to the President is strong, and appeals to logic and reason won’t often suffice. Followers of the Bush Cult will not trust libertarian writers, or the mainstream media that bring tidings of great sadness. It’s all a conspiracy against morality, decency, and Christianity. They will need to hear, not read, but hear, the truth from a fellow Christian. I don’t know if there’s any other way."
Wilson's link to our CultureRepair.com website resulted in a one-day Alexa ranking of 39,998 with a reach of 20 per million Internet users. But that's not the best news. Orders were placed for a total of 357 CDs. I pray they all get listened to -- that they touch hearts and change minds.
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
Bush Abortion Funding Part 1
Another of my controversial statements on the new CD "Why Conservative Christians Are Re-evaluation George W. Bush is that he's really not pro-life. Virtually every Christian I meet balks at the suggestion. But now, according to CovenantNews.com, President Bush deceived Americans in the second presidential debate: taxpayers ARE funding abortions - with his signature on HHS Appropriations bills !
When responding to an audience question about taxpayers' money being used to support abortion during that debate, President Bush gave this response: "...My answer is, we're not going to spend taxpayers' money on abortion."
There are actually three ways that taxpayers' money IS being used to "support abortion."
1. President Bush is funding selected surgical abortions via Medicaid (Title XIX)
2. President Bush is funding chemical abortions via both Medicaid (Title XIX) and via the Title X birth/population control and Planned Parenthood funding program
3. President Bush is funding Planned Parenthood, the largest perpetrators of abortion in the United States (Planned Parenthood reports destroying over 200,000 unborn children annually by surgical abortion alone), through both Medicaid (Title XIX) and Title X, with OVER $50 MILLION per year through each program, for a total of OVER $100 MILLION per year, just through these two Planned Parenthood funding mechanisms
4. Furthermore, Title X birth/population control funding has INCREASED during the Bush administration, by MORE THAN $26,000,000 OVER THE LAST CLINTON BUDGET. Clinton's last budget allocated $254 MILLION in FY 2001. Bush's first budget boosted it to $265 MILLION in FY 2002. He upped it again to $280 MILLION in FY 2004.
Not only is this spending immoral, it's unconstitutional. This conservative, pro-life President's failure is all-the-more dramatic when you check out this chart.
Title X Funding History: FY 1998 to FY 2004
1. Clinton administration:
FY 1998 - Title X funding: $203 Million
FY 1999 - Title X funding: $215 Million
FY 2000 - Title X funding: $239 Million
FY 2001 - Title X funding: $254 Million
2. Bush administration:
FY 2002 - Title X funding: $265 Million
FY 2003 - Title X funding: $275 Million
FY 2004 - Title X funding: $280 Million
Source: CovenantNews.com
Another of my controversial statements on the new CD "Why Conservative Christians Are Re-evaluation George W. Bush is that he's really not pro-life. Virtually every Christian I meet balks at the suggestion. But now, according to CovenantNews.com, President Bush deceived Americans in the second presidential debate: taxpayers ARE funding abortions - with his signature on HHS Appropriations bills !
When responding to an audience question about taxpayers' money being used to support abortion during that debate, President Bush gave this response: "...My answer is, we're not going to spend taxpayers' money on abortion."
There are actually three ways that taxpayers' money IS being used to "support abortion."
1. President Bush is funding selected surgical abortions via Medicaid (Title XIX)
2. President Bush is funding chemical abortions via both Medicaid (Title XIX) and via the Title X birth/population control and Planned Parenthood funding program
3. President Bush is funding Planned Parenthood, the largest perpetrators of abortion in the United States (Planned Parenthood reports destroying over 200,000 unborn children annually by surgical abortion alone), through both Medicaid (Title XIX) and Title X, with OVER $50 MILLION per year through each program, for a total of OVER $100 MILLION per year, just through these two Planned Parenthood funding mechanisms
4. Furthermore, Title X birth/population control funding has INCREASED during the Bush administration, by MORE THAN $26,000,000 OVER THE LAST CLINTON BUDGET. Clinton's last budget allocated $254 MILLION in FY 2001. Bush's first budget boosted it to $265 MILLION in FY 2002. He upped it again to $280 MILLION in FY 2004.
Not only is this spending immoral, it's unconstitutional. This conservative, pro-life President's failure is all-the-more dramatic when you check out this chart.
Title X Funding History: FY 1998 to FY 2004
1. Clinton administration:
FY 1998 - Title X funding: $203 Million
FY 1999 - Title X funding: $215 Million
FY 2000 - Title X funding: $239 Million
FY 2001 - Title X funding: $254 Million
2. Bush administration:
FY 2002 - Title X funding: $265 Million
FY 2003 - Title X funding: $275 Million
FY 2004 - Title X funding: $280 Million
Source: CovenantNews.com
Monday, October 11, 2004
Defending Hussein?
A Mr. CC from Texas wrote to Downsize DC (my day job) and said that we had claimed that, "that Hussein wasn't the brutal dictator that our politicians claim he is." He went on to point out that, "It was Hussein who committed the Chemical Massacre of the Kurds." Then he asked, "If that wasn't the work of a dictator, what kind of person was Hussein?"
I have never, ever said Saddam Hussein was not a brutal dictator... he was.
However, to answer CC's question very precisely, the Kurd gassing story is very questionable, if not an outright myth -- part of a pre-war propoganda campaign designed to further demonize Hussein. The mass killing of Kurds to which CC appeals took place during the Iran-Iraq War. The U.S. government was on Iraq's side. As we documented at TruthAboutWar.org, both sides of the Iran-Iraq War were using different chemical agents on each other. The (U.S.) Army War College believes that the chemicals that killed the Kurds were Iranian, not Iraqi.
But CC's question still must be addressed, because the contention that we were fighting the war to bring freedom to Iraq is part of a massive public relations campaign on behalf of the President, based on the premise that if you repeat a lie often enough it will be believed. We did not go to war to fight dictators. Besides, that argument would've been insufficient to get the American people to allow any President to take such unprecedented action.
But if CC or anyone else reading this message believes that our government should be in the business of dethroning brutal dictators, then our government should stop funding the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, each of which have consistently funneled money to brutal dictators and oppresive socialist regimes, who have in turn used these very funds to oppress their people. It is also interesting to note that NO ONE in the Bush administration is proposing going to the continent of Africa to stop far larger numbers of people from being dislocated from their homes and, all-too-often, brutally slaughtered.
A Mr. CC from Texas wrote to Downsize DC (my day job) and said that we had claimed that, "that Hussein wasn't the brutal dictator that our politicians claim he is." He went on to point out that, "It was Hussein who committed the Chemical Massacre of the Kurds." Then he asked, "If that wasn't the work of a dictator, what kind of person was Hussein?"
I have never, ever said Saddam Hussein was not a brutal dictator... he was.
However, to answer CC's question very precisely, the Kurd gassing story is very questionable, if not an outright myth -- part of a pre-war propoganda campaign designed to further demonize Hussein. The mass killing of Kurds to which CC appeals took place during the Iran-Iraq War. The U.S. government was on Iraq's side. As we documented at TruthAboutWar.org, both sides of the Iran-Iraq War were using different chemical agents on each other. The (U.S.) Army War College believes that the chemicals that killed the Kurds were Iranian, not Iraqi.
But CC's question still must be addressed, because the contention that we were fighting the war to bring freedom to Iraq is part of a massive public relations campaign on behalf of the President, based on the premise that if you repeat a lie often enough it will be believed. We did not go to war to fight dictators. Besides, that argument would've been insufficient to get the American people to allow any President to take such unprecedented action.
But if CC or anyone else reading this message believes that our government should be in the business of dethroning brutal dictators, then our government should stop funding the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, each of which have consistently funneled money to brutal dictators and oppresive socialist regimes, who have in turn used these very funds to oppress their people. It is also interesting to note that NO ONE in the Bush administration is proposing going to the continent of Africa to stop far larger numbers of people from being dislocated from their homes and, all-too-often, brutally slaughtered.
Friday, October 01, 2004
Is George W. Bush Pro-Life?
From James Glaser, posted at LewRockwell.com
...Bush’s wars have killed and wounded tens of thousands of innocent civilians. No one knows the exact number, because the Bush administration cares so little for innocent life, they won’t even keep a count.
No one knows how many innocent pregnant women have been killed by our bombs and bullets.
The religious right in America will tell you to vote for George Bush because he has dazzled them with some Bible quotes and Christian sayings. They will even tell you that Bush is anti-abortion, but George will never come right out and say he is. Yes he did sign the "Partial Birth Abortion Bill," but only after a poll said 80 some percent of Americans agreed with it.
George Bush has never sent any [new] anti-abortion legislation to Congress nor has he used his bully pulpit to push for abortion reform. That is because George Bush is not pro-life.
From James Glaser, posted at LewRockwell.com
...Bush’s wars have killed and wounded tens of thousands of innocent civilians. No one knows the exact number, because the Bush administration cares so little for innocent life, they won’t even keep a count.
No one knows how many innocent pregnant women have been killed by our bombs and bullets.
The religious right in America will tell you to vote for George Bush because he has dazzled them with some Bible quotes and Christian sayings. They will even tell you that Bush is anti-abortion, but George will never come right out and say he is. Yes he did sign the "Partial Birth Abortion Bill," but only after a poll said 80 some percent of Americans agreed with it.
George Bush has never sent any [new] anti-abortion legislation to Congress nor has he used his bully pulpit to push for abortion reform. That is because George Bush is not pro-life.
