by Dr. Patrick Johnston 15 February 2004

George W. Bush professes to be a Christian, goes to church, makes references to Bible verses, and says, “God bless America,” but so did Bill Clinton, so this alone cannot be sufficient to win our vote.

The Roman emperor Nero didn’t mind Romans calling themselves Christians. He didn’t throw them to the lions or burn them at the stake because they believed in Jesus. He just wanted them to worship Caesar too. They were allowed to add Jesus to their list of Roman gods. Even today in Communist China, Christians are not beaten, tortured, and imprisoned in labor camps because they believe in Jesus or profess to be Christians. Not at all. They’re persecuted because they act like Christians. They’re beaten and thrown in prison because they evangelize, because they deny the heresies of the government-sanctioned church, because they speak against tyrannical government usurpations such as the denial of God-given rights, because they refuse to render unto Caesar that which is due only to God.

Not every person who professes to be a Christian is one. Faith without works, without tangible deeds of obedience, is dead faith – it is the faith of devils. (James 2:10-24) Jesus asks, “Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” (Luke 6:46) “Ye shall know them by their fruits. Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.” (Matthew 7:16-20)

George W. Bush professes to be a Christian, goes to church, makes references to Bible verses, and says, “God bless America,” but so did Bill Clinton, so this alone cannot be sufficient to win our vote. Like Clinton, George Bush’s fruit was evident to all with eyes to see during his campaign against Gore. Many Christians were undoubtedly innocently ignorant of George W. Bush’s liberal tendencies and so easily susceptible to his conservative rhetoric, but far too many were willfully blind to his bad fruit. Pragmatism took precedence over God’s Word and the principles of conservatism when conservatives the nation over supported and voted for the most electable candidate over the only blessable, anointable candidate, and as you will see in the course of this article, the roots of tyranny have deepened in America as a result. The guilt for the daily encroachment on God-given rights to life, liberty, and property, under President Bush’s leadership, can be laid squarely at the foot of the professing church. If there was ever any doubt about the liberal sway of George W. Bush before his Presidency, that doubt should be well cleared up by now for all but only the willfully naďve.

Do I believe that sincere, well-meaning Christians can vote for George Bush and be right with God? Sure! I believe that a sincere, well-meaning Christian can vote for Howard Dean and be right with God! Having an IQ greater than a slug is not necessary in order to be a Christian. Unintended ignorance can destroy a nation, however, and God’s people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge. (Hosea 6:4) It is intentional, willful, or malicious ignorance in the absence of the fear of God that brings culpability (Proverbs 9), and of this I fear many professing Christians are guilty in their endorsement of George Bush in spite of the abundance of evidence of his bad fruit.

What is this “evil fruit” to which I refer? Precisely what is it about George W. Bush that I believe should preclude sincere Christians from voting for him?

I. George W. Bush on Abortion

On the campaign trail, President Bush professed to be “pro-life,” but with exceptions – he believes abortion to be justified in cases of rape and incest.1,2 The New York Times reported, “It was the same tempered language that George W. Bush typically uses to discuss abortion, which he opposes except in cases of rape, incest or risk to a pregnant woman's life.”3 As Alan Keyes pointed out in the Presidential debates and in various speeches, such pro-life exceptions that allow the innocent to be killed in some circumstances disqualify President Bush from being pro-life at all.4 If President Bush would justify the killing of one innocent person under his jurisdiction, he is disqualified from being a good person, much less a good leader. Having a rapist for a dad is not a capital crime, and for President Bush to state that innocent children can justly be killed because of the tragic circumstances of their conception reveals that he doesn’t comprehend the basic principle of the inalienable, inviolable, God-given right to life acknowledged in our nation’s founding documents.

Also, on the campaign trail, George Bush and his wife both admitted that they don’t think Roe v. Wade should be overturned: “I don’t think the culture has changed to the extent that the American people or the Congress would totally ban abortions,” President Bush professed.5 His wife reiterated her husband’s sentiments on a prime-time television interview on January 18, 2001. G. W. Bush has the power as the President of the United States to overturn this legal child-killing,6 but refuses to exercise this power, and so is responsible for all the child-killing he is allowing.

During the Presidential debates, President Bush was asked what he would say to a raped and pregnant family member. He said that he would tell her that the decision whether or not to kill the child was up to her. That is not pro-life. That’s classic pro-abortion rhetoric. If his daughter wanted to kill her grandmother to get the inheritance early, would he counsel her: “Sweetie, if you want to kill my mom, that’s completely up to you!?" Commenting on abortion on the campaign trail, President Bush stated, “good people can disagree on that issue.”7 Oh really? This is manifestly absurd. Can good people disagree on whether or not innocent people should be murdered? I beg to differ: Good people cannot accept the murder of one single innocent human being.

Many conservatives have tried to overlook President Bush’s liberal tendencies in hopes that at the least G. W. Bush will appoint a pro-lifer to the Supreme Court, and in so doing, help overturn Roe v. Wade. Their hope is not only without evidence, it is plainly contrary to evidence. In his prime-time television debates with Gore, George Bush flatly denied that he had a pro-life litmus test for Court appointees.8 If a judicial candidate deemed it just and constitutional to execute innocent people, that did not exclude him from a possible appointment to the Supreme Court according to President Bush. President Bush has insisted that he will only appoint “strict constructionists” to the Court, or people who will interpret and apply the Constitution as the founders intended and not as an evolving, “living document,” but according to President Bush they need not be pro-life ‘strict constructionists.’ His record as Governor of Texas shows that he does indeed appoint pro-abortion judges, so we should not be surprised if President Bush were to appoint pro-abortion judges to the Supreme Court.

Frequently displayed as evidence of President Bush’s pro-life views is his signing of legislation when he was Texas’ Governor that forbade underage girls from getting abortions without parental consent. The pro-life community roared their approval: a 13-year-old girl can’t get an aspirin without parental consent, why should she be allowed to undergo a surgical or chemical abortion without parental consent?! That’s sound pro-life legislation, right? George Bush must be pro-life, huh? Wrong! Did you realize that this piece of legislation was nullified by a Texas Supreme Court decision that ruled 6-3 that an unexceptional 17-year-old could get an abortion without telling her parents?9 The New York Times reported, “It was, after all, appointees of Gov. George W. Bush who took the lead on the issue…” You see, it was G.W. Bush who appointed four of the court’s nine justices and has been a political patron for a fifth, Harriet O’Neill, who wrote the majority opinion in the parental notification case. If this is what President Bush means by “strict constructionists,” then any hope that he will appoint a pro-lifer to the Federal bench is baseless.

Also displayed as evidence that President Bush is pro-life was his reinstitution of Reagan’s Mexico City policy in the first days of his Presidency, which forbade taxpayer dollars from being given to organizations that perform abortions overseas.10 However, the pro-life façade soon came down. In a major policy shift, President Bush has decided to allow social service agencies in Africa and the Caribbean to receive funds from the U.S. treasury under his $15 billion emergency AIDS relief plan even if they promote family planning and provide abortions.11, 12 The New York Times confirmed, “Ignoring objections from his conservative base, President Bush is to make a Rose Garden speech on Tuesday in support of a $15 billion bill to fight A.I.D.S. internationally that will direct some money to groups that promote abortion," and that will do very little to actually prevent AIDS.13

Conservative groups also hold forth President Bush’s support of the “Partial Birth Abortion Ban” as evidence that he is indeed pro-life. Really? Does that make Tom Daschle pro-life, since he supports the Ban too? Don’t be so gullible, friend. The Partial Birth Abortion Ban won’t save a single life!14 Not one! Millions of rare pro-life dollars and countless hours of precious pro-life energy has been wasted over the course of a decade on a bill that won’t save a single life! The same babies that would perish through the “Dilation and Extraction Procedure” will die through arguably more painful “procedures” such as the “Dilation and Evacuation Procedure,” where instead of being instantly killed with a stab to the head, the baby will be slowly ripped limb from limb. Furthermore, the very language of the ban encourages the killing of the baby before extraction. If an abortionist injects poison into the full-term baby’s heart, for instance, and then performs the “D & X Procedure,” then the Ban would not apply.15 Thoughtful pro-lifers should oppose this counterfeit pro-life bill, this colossal waste of paper that perpetuates the Abortion Holocaust.

Thanks to G.W. Bush’s leadership, companies such as Planned Parenthood, the largest baby-killing conglomerate in the world, will get taxpayer funding. Planned Parenthood was responsible for the deaths of 227,385 Americans in 2002 alone. Planned Parenthood's 2002-2003 Annual Report shows that 33 % of its income came from federal government grants and contracts totaling $254.4 million in the fiscal year ending in June 2003, thanks to Medicaid disbursements and President Bush’s Title X of the Public Health Service Act in 2001. Under Bush, this baby-killing organization has received more tax-funds than under Clinton! Thanks in large part due to government handouts under President Bush, Planned Parenthood raked in a hefty $36.6 million profit in its last fiscal year.16

It is no exaggeration to say that President Bush kills babies. He uses his influence and power to perpetuate the Abortion Holocaust. Abortion abolitionists need to look beyond the Republican Party to find friends for the preborn. Those of us who supported George W. Bush and elected him to office may be responsible for the bloodshed that he perpetuated, either by way of our willful ignorance or our intentional refusal to judge righteous judgment, to judge President Bush by its fruit.

II. George W. Bush on Sodomy

Conservatives all over the nation are significantly frightened right now about the prospects of Federally mandated “gay marriages.” The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled this summer that their state constitution does not forbid gays from getting married, and they gave the legislature six months to change the marriage laws to accommodate sodomites who want to marry. If the legislature capitulates and grants homosexuals the right to marry, they will get married in Massachusetts and return to their home states to sue to have their marriages accepted. Thanks to a popular interpretation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, those suits may be successful and if they are, the social and financial benefits states grant to marriage will be minimized and the covenant of marriage in America will be crippled. Under the present judicial tyranny that regularly defies the will of the people and spurns the Constitution, the fear of family advocacy groups is legitimate.

Similarly, conservatives fear the judicial activism that is forcing a new religion down our throats, namely, atheistic humanism. We have Federal judges like U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson ruling that Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore has no right to acknowledge God on the job. Conservatives are in an uproar about the judicial tyranny that would cause a democratically-elected, upright man such as Roy Moore, who was only following his state Constitution’s precedent in acknowledging God, to be evicted from the state bench.

Where do these bench-legislating, cultural-marxist judges come from?

They come from Presidents like G.W. Bush! And they are rubber-stamped to the bench by the so-called conservative Republicans in the Senate. Let’s judge this President Bush by his fruit.

In an interview with Diane Sawyer on gay unions, President Bush said, “The position of this administration is that whatever legal arrangements people want to make, they’re allowed to make, so long as it’s embraced by the state or at the state level.”17 In other words, if state Supreme Court judges want “civil unions” like the Vermont statute, that state should be allowed to have it.18 We should not be surprised by the judicial tyranny that threatens to force gay marriages, “gay civil unions,” and a new state religion, atheistic humanism, upon us – we have supported and voted for men such as President Bush who appointed these pro-abortion, pro-homosexual judicial activists. The same family advocacy groups that condemn statements of President Bush like this that undermine traditional marriage supported him in 2000 and will probably support him in 2004.

President Bush has stated that he has no qualms about hiring homosexuals,20 and he has proven it. He has appointed open homosexuals to high government positions at a rate that makes Bill Clinton look like a homophobe!21 In December of 1999, when President Bush was Governor of Texas, he appointed a supporter of the Houston Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus and also of Planned Parenthood, Martha Hill Jamison, to the 164th District Court in Houston. Very early in his tenure as President, G.W. Bush appointed a pro-homosexual, pro-abortion candidate to the Federal bench.22 Early in 2000, President Bush attempted to purge the Republican platform of planks against homosexual marriage and homosexuals in the military. On April 9, 2001, he appointed a renown homosexual activist, Scott Evertz, to the Office of National AIDS Policy, which was the first appointment of an open homosexual to this federal position.23 On June 18, 2002, he transferred Evertz to direct U.S. Policy on Global Fund for AIDS and appointed another homosexual activist to take over as new director of the Office of National AIDS Policy.24

On September 18, 2001, President Bush appointed a homosexual activist to be Ambassador to Romania at the protest of the Romanian government. Furthermore, President Bush authorized a Clinton policy that allows an “unmarried partner” of a foreign aid worker to be given the same status as a married spouse. So the ambassador’s homosexual lover accompanies him to official government functions, travels with and resides with him on the taxpayers’ tab. On August 22, 2001, President Bush appointed an open homosexual to the U.S. Commission on Fine Arts.25 He presided over the appointment of another open homosexual to oversee the choice of civilian personnel at the Pentagon.26 The Bush administration posted a job for a "gay and lesbian program specialist" at the Department of Agriculture. On November 1, 2001, President Bush appointed an open homosexual to the State Department as an arms control advisor, which was the first appointment of an openly gay person to a senior arms control post. President Bush insisted that openly homosexual Congressman Jim Kolbe of Arizona be given a prominent speaking role at the Republican National Convention.27, 28 On January 25, 2002, President Bush appointed many openly gay Republicans to the President’s Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS.29

G.W. Bush hired running mate Dick Cheney’s openly gay daughter to be a consultant for him during his campaign. “The governor believes Mr. Cheney has a wonderful family,” a Bush spokesman said. “Being gay or lesbian is not a liability in this campaign. The governor embraces both of Mr. Cheney’s daughters and will invite them to campaign with him.”30 Dick Cheney openly promotes “same-sex unions.”31

On Dec. 21, 2001, President Bush and the Republican Congress passed historic legislation extending family health benefits to Washington, D.C., employee's "partners" and also gave unfettered adoption rights to D.C. homosexual couples. He refused to nullify a 1998 Clinton executive order prohibiting discrimination against homosexuals in the federal workforce. He signed a bill allowing death benefits to be paid to the “domestic partners” of firefighters and police officers who die in the line of duty.32 This was the first time that a federal death benefit was granted to same-sex couples. He has increased funding for homosexual propaganda campaigns under the guise of health education programs. He allowed the Office of Personnel Management, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of Justice, to openly celebrate “gay pride.”33 On April 18, 2002, at the annual meeting of the Log Cabin Republicans, the White House hosted a first-ever policy briefing for gay Republicans, featuring senior administration advisors.34 On June 24, 2002, President Bush signed the Father Mychal Judge Act, in honor of the openly gay fire department chaplain who died at the World Trade Center on 9-11. This act allows public safety officers killed in the line of duty to assign federal benefits to designated beneficiaries, including same-sex partners.35 It is the first such federal law which allows such benefits to be granted.

President Bush publicly praised the Metropolian Community Church of Los Angeles on occasion of its 35th anniversary, a church that performs 6,000 “gay marriages” annually.36 In his letter of congratulations, President Bush said, “By encouraging the celebration of faith and sharing of God's love and boundless mercy, churches like yours put hope in people's hearts and a sense of purpose in their lives. This milestone provides an opportunity to reflect on your years of service and to rejoice in God's faithfulness to your congregation."

George Bush joined a horde of homosexual activists in maligning and mischaracterizing a Christian man, Jerry Thacker, he had appointed to the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS. Mr. Thacker’s wife acquired the disease from a blood transfusion during delivery, and when she and her infant son succumbed to the disease, Jerry Thacker, now HIV positive, devoted himself to ministering the transforming love of God to those dying of AIDS. He offered forgiveness and redemption to homosexuals through the grace of Jesus Christ and reparative counseling. Presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer said of Thacker, "The views that he holds are far, far removed from what the president believes."37 Thacker withdrew from the appointment after President Bush and the homosexual smear machine began to denigrate and verbally assault him for his beliefs.

George Bush’s home church in Texas is Highland Park United Methodist Church in Dallas.38 This church welcomes impenitent homosexuals as members. President Bush said he reads the Bible daily, but he confessed to the New York Times, “I don’t necessarily believe every single word is literally true.” About the evolution-creation debate, he said, “The verdict is still out on how God created the earth. I don’t use the Bible as necessarily a way to predict the findings of science.” In other words, Darwinism may be true according to President Bush. When the Bible and a scientific consensus are at odds, whom do you think that George Bush believes?

The church has largely neglected its Biblical duty to judge a tree by its fruit, to “judge righteous judgment.”39 George W. Bush is a counterfeit conservative. If judicial activists pervert the covenant of marriage to accommodate the homosexual lobby, it will be because of politicians like George Bush who appoint them. The majority of the Supreme Court justices who handed legalized child-killing down to us, who outlawed Bible reading and prayer in schools, and who refused to hear Roy Moore’s appeal were appointed by Republican “Christians” who got in office with the support of the conservative Christians in America. The blame for the assault on the traditional family and the preborn can be laid squarely at our feet because of our negligence in preferring pragmatism over principle, political power over persecution, and religious pluralism over Christ. The Supreme Court has forsaken God ultimately because the professing church has forsaken God. Thousands of “the least of these” are murdered every day in America because the majority of professing Christians voted for it or failed to vote against it. The only truly pro-life, pro-family, constitutional candidate for President who was on the ballot in 2000 was the Constitution Party’s candidate, but that vote would have required a faith that works.

III. George W. Bush on Other Issues

There are many other reasons Christians should conscientiously object to voting for George W. Bush. Certainly, many of these acts are not necessarily sinful, but together they provide convincing proof that George W. Bush is not an authentic conservative.

* He demoralized Korean and Japanese Christians by bowing down at a pagan Shinto shrine in Japan.40 * His public profession that Muslims and Christians worship the same God, contrary to the plain teaching of Scripture.41, 42 * His endorsement of Ramadan, a Muslim fast, at a White House celebration.43 * His proposal to increase funding of the National Endowment for the Arts by 15 percent, the highest percentage increase in two decades. That's a total of 139 million dollars in 2005 to finance art, much of which is blasphemous. (Recall the taxpayer-financed painting of a crucifix in a jar of urine.)44 * His support of increased Federal involvement in the education of children at the state and local level. Funding for government education has increased billions of dollars under President Bush.45 * His support of Clinton’s 1995 “assault weapons ban” which outlawed a host of semi-automatic guns. The gun ban was due to expire in 2005, but according to Presidential spokesman Scott McClellan, "The president supports the current law (the Clinton gun ban), and he supports reauthorization of the current law."46, 47 * His approval of federally-financed experimentation on human embryos.48 * His support of Clinton’s National Monuments Declaration, in which millions of acres of western land were seized by the executive branch.49, 50 * His dramatic increase in the size and spending of the federal government with a record deficit. With his $2.23 trillion budget, his administration will complete the biggest increase in government spending since Lyndon Johnson’s "Great Society." The budget deficit predicted by the House Budget Office will hit a record $306 billion. Spending on government programs increased 22 % from 1999 to 2003. A Washington Post report said, "The era of big government, if it ever went away, has returned full-throttle under President Bush.” Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey commented that under President Bush, the federal government is "out of control." 51 * Not only did President Bush publicly condemn Judge Roy Moore’s actions52, his chief political consultant Karl Rove spearheaded the attack against him.53 When Roy Moore was before Bill Pryor’s inquisition, about to lose his job for his public stand for God, President Bush was in California campaigning for a pro-abortion, pro-homosexual Republican, Arnold Schwarzenegger. * His expansion of government welfare programs to illegal aliens and his proposals to grant amnesty to illegal aliens.54, 54, 56 President Bush has demonstrated dangerous negligence in restoring security to our borders. * His proposal to increase the budget and the power of the Internal Revenue Service: “Bush would give the IRS a 5.3 percent boost to $10.4 billion for the budget year that begins Oct. 1. That will include $133 million dollars for added audits of businesses and high-income taxpayers.”58 * His increased funding of the National Endowment of the Arts, which uses taxpayer money to publicize vulgar and blasphemous “art,” such as the artwork depicting a crucifix in a jar of urine.59, 60 * His endorsement and promotion of the globalist, sovereignty-threatening aims of the United Nations.61, 62 He has continued the Clintonian policy of sending our soldiers to serve under U.N. commanders on U.N. missions. * He signed into law a massive expansion of Medicare that, according to Ron Paul (R-Texas), resulted in "the single largest expansion of the federal welfare state since the Great Society programs of the 1960s."63, 64 * In spite of the fact that he campaigned on the promise to veto any campaign finance reform legislation that limited Americans’ freedom of speech, he signed into law the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill that effectively eviscerated the first amendment.65, 66 * With the so-called Patriot Act and the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003, his remedy for terrorism has been an ever-growing police state.67 These pieces of legislation read like KGB manuals of an all-powerful Leninist state – Janet Reno could only dream of serving under such a President! The government can bug and search citizens and their private records without court oversight and without suspicion of a crime; they can lock you up indefinitely without a formal charge; they can deny you an attorney and a jury of your peers, etc. Our leaders have exploited a tragedy to retire as the servants of the citizens and attempt to usurp constitutional limitations to become our masters.

G.W. Bush is pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, he’s anti-gun, and he’s the biggest spender in American history. American conservatives have taken the bait at the expense of their cause and God’s glory.

Rebuttal: (One I heard many times in the year preceding the 2000 elections.)

“A vote for Howard Phillips,” (the only pro-life, pro-family constitutional Presidential candidate on the ballot 2000) “is a vote for Al Gore.”

If you are shortsighted, pragmatism will dictate that you vote for the least wicked man who will do the least amount of wickedness and destroy the least amount of your freedoms these next four years. I have a good friend who can’t stand President Bush’s pro-abortion or pro-homosexual leanings or his big-government remedy for every social ill, but he voted for Bush in 2000 anyway because the one thing he feared more than Bush was Gore. But if you vote for the lesser of two evils every four years, the lesser of two evils will inevitably become more and more wicked! If you vote for the most conservative of two liberals every four years, the most conservative liberal will become more and more liberal! Your vision must be greater than the next four years. You need to vote with your grandchildren in mind.

If you always vote for the most conservative of two liberal candidates, then America will always be justifying the murder of preborn children. Always! In 2020, maybe the lesser of two evils is a pro-abortion homosexual who will charge you only 80% for taxes while the greater of two evils is a pro-abortion communist who charges 95%. Do you see what I am saying? There must be some issues on which conservatives will not compromise, and the legal killing of children is one of those issues.

I am going to vote to keep my conscience clean first and foremost. That means I’m going to vote for the best man for the job and pray in faith (not in unbelief) for a miracle. If more saints did the same, we WILL see our miracle.69 I am praying, "God give us godly leaders who will outlaw abortion and govern us in accordance with the laws of nature and nature's God." How can I pray this prayer and not act in accordance? Should I pray in unbelief (as evidenced by my vote on Nov.7)? Or should I pray in faith, and act in accordance to my prayers?

Voting for Bush over Gore was not “the lesser of two evils,” as it has often been said. It was more evil! When the liberal President Bill Clinton tried to shove his socialistic, liberal nonsense down the nation’s throat, conservatives in Congress and around the nation fought him every step of the way.70 How can so many of those conservatives live with themselves as they support and vote with President Bush as he does the very same thing they so vigorously opposed with Bill Clinton? It appears that conservatives have unconditional allegiance for their darling, “Christian” President, regardless of how many babies he kills, how many militant homosexual he appoints, how much of our hard-money he steals and spends on nonsense to which we would not donate voluntarily, how many of our constitutional liberties he rescinds with his anti-terrorism legislation, and how successful he has been in four years at doing what Clinton was unable to do in eight! As Alan Keyes admitted when George W. Bush was chosen to be the Republican nominee, Bush is more dangerous than Clinton! Voting the lesser of two evils is only reasonable when it truly is lesser; but with the Republican Party’s capitulation to Bush’s liberal agenda, Bush accomplished much more for the left than Clinton ever dreamed!

I would be remiss to mention that many Christian Bush-supporters are not ignorant or naive about the President's liberal tendencies. They hate government-sanctioned child-killing and the homosexual agenda and they are aware of Bush’s grave shortcomings in these areas, but they believe that promoting godliness in government is a matter of "incrementalism" -- a gradual shifting of policies and legislation to the right. The conservative "incrementalists" condemn my approach as an "all-or-nothing" mentality that is doomed to obscurity and failure. I have two comments about the philosophy of incrementalism when it comes to President Bush. First, if Bush is "incrementally" taking us anywhere, it's to the left. The same goes with the Republican party as a whole: they are "incrementally" taking conservativism to the left -- we are not taking them to the right. Under G.W. Bush and a Republican-dominated Congress and Senate, there are more babies dying at the expense of the taxpayers, there are more homosexual proponents of gay marriage being elevated to positions of government leadership, the central government is getting larger and Constitutional rights are being undermined even more than under Clinton. Conservatives have been betrayed by Bush's rhetoric, and have not judged him by his fruit.

Second, I freely admit that political incrementalism has its place. I am not at all against it. But there comes a time when Christians, constrained by conscience, must draw a line in the sand and say, "No! I'm not going to compromise anymore!" If we can compromise to support a Presidential or Congressional candidate who supports the killing of innocent preborn children in some instances, then what won't we compromise on? Would we compromise to support a candidate that supported the killing of Jews, or the elderly and infirmed? Would we compromise to support the "incremental" abolition of kidnapping and enslaving blacks? Would we compromise to support a candidate that supported the killing of Christians? I don’t think we would compromise to support a “conservative” candidate who endorsed the killing of us, and if not, do we love our neighbor as ourselves if we compromise to support a candidate who endorses the killing of our preborn neighbors? I fear for the professing Christians who compromise to vote for a President whom they know justifies abortion and who doesn't want Roe v. Wade to be overturned. Will they look down at their hands on Judgment Day to see them stained with innocent blood? Will they hear, "Inasmuch as ye did it not to the least of these, ye did it not to me"? (Matthew 25:45)

Conclusion:

In George W. Bush, the church has elected a government leader after its own image. Our government and society have descended headlong into the sewage of immorality because the church has. Homosexuals and pro-abortion activists fill our government offices because they fill our pews and choir lofts. We have largely ceased to be the salt of the United States of America, and Jesus promised that we’ll be cast out and trodden under the boot heels of wicked men.71 Judgment must first begin in the House of God. Suffering and tyranny will be our lot if we persist in our lukewarmness. There are many more September 11’s coming, America. The II Chronicles 7:14 remedy for national forgiveness and healing includes that we “turn from (our) wicked ways.” If the American church doesn’t repent for tolerating sin and leaving our first love, then the Lord will remove our candlestick.72 However, if we repent of our tolerance of sin and judge ourselves, if we put impenitent sinners out of the church as I Corinthians 5 instructs, the Lord promises that we will not be judged. If we pray in faith for godly leaders and act in accordance, then the Lord, who sets up and tears down kings, might restore the Republic. The future of our nation and our liberties depends on our obedience to His law and will.

In 1995, James Dobson of Focus on the Family publicly repented on air and in his March newsletter for having supported somewhat pro-choice politicians. “Perhaps this explains the statement I made on the radio last month, which some of you questioned. Let me express it once more,” wrote Dobson. “I am committed never again to cast a vote for a politician who would kill one innocent baby… Never will I use my influence, however remotely, to support the shedding of their blood.” After the election, James Dobson admitted that he voted for Howard Phillips, the Constitution Party’s Candidate for President.

It’s time that Christians make the same vow: never again will we use our influence or our vote or a single red cent to encourage one drop of innocent bloodshed. We will draw a line in the sand far enough to the right that no pro-abortion fanatics, homosexual activistss, or God-haters can win our allegiance. Like Gideon’s Army, the Lord may dwindle us down to a zealous few before the victorious battle, but it will be a few out of whom God can get some glory.

As for me and my house, we will support and vote for a Presidential candidate that is pro-life without exceptions, who will not capitulate to the militant homosexuals, and who will constrain themselves to the Constitution upon which our nation was founded.

Dr. Johnston practices family medicine in Zanesville, Ohio, and is Vice Chairman of the Constitutional Party of Ohio. His ministry is Where the Truth Hurts.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 11, 2004

Answers

I took off the end notes on this article. If you want them, I can direct you towards the link. They just took up to much space to be posted.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 11, 2004.

Hi David, very interesting article. Especially Dobson's quotes!

Furthermore, I question why a purported Christian would be a member of the a secret society known as "Skull and Bones." Bush has admitted he is a member . . . why?

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), August 11, 2004.

In this election its either Bush or Kerry... Neither are great men for the job. Kerry is pro Abortion and Pro Gay Marriage...

Kerry is pro socialist state amd agaisn personal liberty.

I cannot in good ocnenince Vote Kerry. Even with Bush's faults, he does uphold the rights of the citesenry, making him a better choisce than Kerry, if not the best possible choice we could have mustered.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), August 11, 2004.

I'm not sure about that "rights of the citizenship" think Zarove. Ever hear much about the Patriot Act? Pretty scary stuff! No due process for anyone "suspected" of terrorism and pretty much would give the government carte blanche at seizing and detaining ANYONE FOR ANY REASON AT ANY TIME, and with no "phone call" privilege! No lawyer. No right of defense . . . NOTHING!

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), August 11, 2004.

www.constitutionparty.com

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 11, 2004.

I'm shocked after reading this article by Dr. Johnston. I must first learn if his information is factual. I know "constitutionalists" who are nothing more than watered down liberals.

Regardless, Christians need to be examining their own life and praying for God-fearing men in our Federal Supreme court and throughout our judicial system.

-- Darren Laine (dlaine@manitowoc.org)

-- Darren Laine (dlaine@manitowoc.org), August 11, 2004.

You can read the footnotes to check on facts here:

http://www.peroutka2004.com/schedule/index.php?action=itemview&event_id=100

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 11, 2004.

This article is written more than likely by a Democrat trying to use reverse-psychology or something twisted!!

What a bunch of bull..............

Remember respect?

The Bible tells us that all officials are in place according to God's will. We should remember that and try looking at the truth about President Bush.. He is fighting against all odds with this abortion thing and this gay marriage thing and he has made great progress.

Surely--Kerry the hypocrite., would be a terrible option.

And that old skull and bones thing again?? That's so old. Obviously there is no truth in that... How gullable are we suppose to be here? Leave that old lie in the closet where it belongs.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 11, 2004.

Why dont we all just move tot he south and declare our independance. Oh wait... we tried that...nevermind...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), August 11, 2004.

Actually, Faith, I saw the interview. It was Tim Russert, well known newsman, asking Bush about Skull and Bones. You can view the video clip on line. I believe the interview was within the last several months. I am still going to vote for Bush, because I think he's the best shot we've got, but I have no illusions about him either.

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), August 11, 2004.

And here's an article found at CBS' website:

(CBS) As opposite as George Bush and John Kerry may seem to be, they do share a common secret - one they've shared for decades, and one they will not share with the electorate.

The secret: details of their membership in Skull and Bones, the elite Yale University society whose members include some of the most powerful men of the 20th century.

Bonesmen, as they're called, are forbidden to reveal what goes on in their inner sanctum, the windowless building on the Yale campus that is called the Tomb.

When 60 Minutes first reported on Skull & Bones last October, conspiracy theorists, who see Skull and Bones behind just about everything that goes wrong, and even right, in the world, were relishing the unthinkable - the possibility of two Bonesman fighting it out for the presidency.

Over the years, Bones has included presidents, cabinet officers, spies, Supreme Court justices, captains of industry, and often their sons and lately their daughters, a social and political network like no other.

And to a man and women, they'd responded to questions with utter silence until an enterprising Yale graduate, Alexandra Robbins, managed to penetrate the wall of silence in her book, “Secrets of the Tomb,” reports CBS News Correspondent Morley Safer.

----------

"I spoke with about 100 members of Skull and Bones and they were members who were tired of the secrecy, and that's why they were willing to talk to me,” says Robbins. “But probably twice that number hung up on me, harassed me, or threatened me.”

Secret or not, Skull and Bones is as essential to Yale as the Whiffenpoofs, the tables down at a pub called Mory's, and the Yale mascot - that ever-slobbering bulldog.

Skull and Bones, with all its ritual and macabre relics, was founded in 1832 as a new world version of secret student societies that were common in Germany at the time. Since then, it has chosen or "tapped" only 15 senior students a year who become patriarchs when they graduate -- lifetime members of the ultimate old boys' club.

“Skull and Bones is so tiny. That's what makes this staggering,” says Robbins. “There are only 15 people a year, which means there are about 800 living members at any one time.”

But a lot of Bonesmen have gone on to positions of great power, which Robbins says is the main purpose of this secret society: to get as many members as possible into positions of power.

“They do have many individuals in influential positions,” says Robbins. “And that's why this is something that we need to know about.”

President Bush has tapped five fellow Bonesmen to join his administration. Most recently, he selected William Donaldson, Skull and Bones 1953, the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Like the President, he's taken the Bones oath of silence.

-----------

Ron Rosenbaum, author and columnist for the New York Observer, has become obsessed with cracking that code of secrecy.

“I think there is a deep and legitimate distrust in America for power and privilege that are cloaked in secrecy. It's not supposed to be the way we do things,” says Rosenbaum. “We're supposed to do things out in the open in America. And so that any society or institution that hints that there is something hidden is, I think, a legitimate subject for investigation.”

His investigation is a 30-year obsession dating back to his days as a Yale classmate of George W. Bush. Rosenbaum, a self-described undergraduate nerd, was certainly not a contender for Bones. But he was fascinated by its weirdness.

“It's this sepulchral, tomblike, windowless, granite, sandstone bulk that you can't miss. And I lived next to it,” says Rosenbaum. “I had passed it all the time. And during the initiation rites, you could hear strange cries and whispers coming from the Skull and Bones tomb.”

Despite a lifetime of attempts to get inside, the best Rosenbaum could do was hide out on the ledge of a nearby building a few years ago to videotape a nocturnal initiation ceremony in the Tomb's courtyard.

“A woman holds a knife and pretends to slash the throat of another person lying down before them, and there's screaming and yelling at the neophytes,” he says.

Robbins says the cast of the initiation ritual is right out of Harry Potter meets Dracula: “There is a devil, a Don Quixote and a Pope who has one foot sheathed in a white monogrammed slipper resting on a stone skull. The initiates are led into the room one at a time. And once an initiate is inside, the Bonesmen shriek at him. Finally, the Bonesman is shoved to his knees in front of Don Quixote as the shrieking crowd falls silent. And Don Quixote lifts his sword and taps the Bonesman on his left shoulder and says, ‘By order of our order, I dub thee knight of Euloga.’"

It’s a lot of mumbo-jumbo, says Robbins, but it means a lot to the people who are in it.

“Prescott Bush, George W's grandfather, and a band of Bonesmen, robbed the grave of Geronimo, took the skull and some personal relics of the Apache chief and brought them back to the tomb,” says Robbins. “There is still a glass case, Bonesmen tell me, within the tomb that displays a skull that they all refer to as Geronimo.”

“The preoccupation with bones, mortality, with coffins, lying in coffins, standing around coffins, all this sort of thing I think is designed to give them the sense that, and it's very true, life is short,” says Rosenbaum. “You can spend it, if you have a privileged background, enjoying yourself, contributing nothing, or you can spend it making a contribution.”

And plenty of Bonesmen have made a contribution, from William Howard Taft, the 27th President; Henry Luce, the founder of Time Magazine; and W. Averell Harriman, the diplomat and confidant of U.S. presidents.

“What's important about the undergraduate years of Skull and Bones, as opposed to fraternities, is that it imbues them with a kind of mission for moral leadership,” says Rosenbaum. “And it's something that they may ignore for 30 years of their life, as George W. Bush seemed to successfully ignore it for quite a long time. But he came back to it.”

Mr. Bush, like his father and grandfather before him, has refused to talk openly about Skull and Bones. But as a Bonesman, he was required to reveal his innermost secrets to his fellow Bones initiates.

“They're supposed to recount their entire sexual histories in sort of a dim, a dimly-lit cozy room. The other 14 members are sitting on plush couches, and the lights are dimmed,” says Robbins. “And there's a fire roaring. And the, this activity is supposed to last anywhere from between one to three hours.”

----------

What’s the point of this?

”I believe the point of the year in the tomb is to forge such a strong bond between these 15 new members that after they graduate, for them to betray Skull and Bones would mean they'd have to betray their 14 closest friends,” says Robbins.

One can't help but make certain comparisons with the mafia, for example. Secret society, bonding, stakes may be a little higher in one than the other. But everybody knows everything about everybody, which is a form of protection.

“I think Skull and Bones has had slightly more success than the mafia in the sense that the leaders of the five families are all doing 100 years in jail, and the leaders of the Skull and Bones families are doing four and eight years in the White House,” says Rosenbaum.

Bones is not restricted to the Republican Party. Yet another Bonesman has his eye on the Oval Office: Senator John Kerry, Democrat, Skull & Bones 1966.

“It is fascinating isn't it? I mean, again, all the people say, ‘Oh, these societies don't matter. The Eastern Establishment is in decline.’ And you could not find two more quintessential Eastern establishment, privileged guys,” says Rosenbaum. “I remember when I was a nerdy scholarship student in the reserve book room at, at the Yale Library, and John Kerry, who at that point styled himself ‘John F. Kerry’ would walk in.”

“There was always a little buzz,” adds Rosenbaum. “Because even then he was seen to be destined for higher things. He was head of the Yale Political Union, and a tap for Skull and Bones was seen as the natural sequel to that.”

David Brooks, a conservative commentator who has published a book on the social dynamics of the upwardly mobile, says that while Skull & Bones may be elite and secret, it's anything but exciting.

“My view of secret societies is they're like the first class cabin in airplanes. They're really impressive until you get into them, and then once you're there they're a little dull. So you hear all these conspiracy theories about Skull and Bones,” says Brooks.

“And to me, to be in one of these organizations, you have to have an incredibly high tolerance for tedium 'cause you're sittin' around talking, talking, and talking. You're not running the world, you're just gassing.”

Gassing or not, the best-connected white man's club in America has moved reluctantly into the 21st Century.

“Skull and Bones narrowly endorsed admitting women,” says Robbins. “The day before these women were supposed to be initiated, a group of Bonesmen, including William F. Buckley, obtained a court order to block the initiation claiming that letting women into the tomb would lead to date rape. Again more legal wrangling; finally it came down to another vote and women were admitted and initiated.”

But Skull & Bones now has women, and it’s become more multicultural.

“It has gays who got the SAT scores, it's got the gays who got the straight A's,” says Brooks. “It's got the blacks who are the president of the right associations. It's different criteria. More multicultural, but it's still an elite, selective institution.”

On balance, it may be bizarre, but on a certain perspective, does it provide something of value?

“You take these young strivers, you put them in this weird castle. They spill their guts with each other, fine. But they learn something beyond themselves. They learn a commitment to each other, they learn a commitment to the community,” says Brooks. “And maybe they inherit some of those old ideals of public service that are missing in a lot of other parts of the country.”

And is that relationship, in some cases, stronger than family or faith?

“Absolutely,” says Robbins. “You know, they say, they say the motto at Yale is, ‘For God, for country, and for Yale.’ At Bones, I would think it's ‘For Bones.'”

*************

The article is found here, and has some more interesting information, pictures, etc. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/02/60minutes/main576332.shtml

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), August 11, 2004.

"The Bible tells us that all officials are in place according to God's will. We should remember that and try looking at the truth about President Bush.." - Faith

Just because they are in power by God's Will doesn't mean they are honest. Look at Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, etc. I really don't see him fighting against abortion, and those who make abortion the dividing line in voting should take a good look at what Bush has done to "fight" against it.

I am amazed that you said "officials are in place according to God's will". But I'll talk about that later.

"He is fighting against all odds with this abortion thing and this gay marriage thing and he has made great progress." - Faith

"Great progress"??? Which way, forwards or backwards?

I believe Bush is a hypocrite, and it is evident already, which is why he is going to lose the election. The other options are as great either, though, but I am amazed at how some people speak of Bush. The elevate him to pope-hood (no pun intended). Makes me sick.

"You evil socialists! Liberals are destroying America!" cry the ultra conservatives. "Kerry this, Kerry that." Is Bush a his followers somehow immune from error? Truly, I believe we should vote Biblical. But if you vote for the lesser evil,.. it should be obvious not to vote for Bush.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 12, 2004.

"This article is written more than likely by a Democrat trying to use reverse-psychology or something twisted!!"

This article was written by a Christian warning those against a hypocrite.

"What a bunch of bull.............."

Bull is attacking a man about his service (the purple hearts issue) yet covering their eyes towards their chicken-hawk awol nancy-boy.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 12, 2004.

David..

Do you honestly think that John Kerry would do a better job at making abortion illegal? At prohibiting gay marriage.., at protecting this country from terrorism??

John Kerry turned against his own fellow soldiers and accused them of atrocities that he he said he participated in. He threw away his medals and became anti-American.

He hasn't enough honor to do what is right rather than what is popular. President Bush does what is right--even when it isn't popular.

Also David--I would add that President Bush was never awol., and the hypocrite is John Kerry. He is the one who talks out of both sides of his mouth!

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 14, 2004.

Do you honestly think that John Kerry would do a better job at making abortion illegal? At prohibiting gay marriage.., at protecting this country from terrorism??

I have to agree with you on this Faith. Personally, I think abortion is a big deal as well as the other issues you mentioned. I can't honestly vote for Kerry based on these specific issues alone.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 14, 2004.

I haven't decided who to vote for. I'm undecided.

On one hand, I feel that Bush should take responsibility for rushing the USA into war without waiting a bit longer for the options to be truly exhausted - to show extraordinary patience. Hans Blix was right. The CIA was wrong. That leaves egg on our international face. Who takes the fall for that? It was the president who rushed us into war as if we were about to get nuked by Iraq at any moment. The president should admit his mistake and make personal restitution. If not, the voter should take responsibility, since we have the ultimate say. If we don't judge, we'll be judged. Everyone knows this in their conscience.

Even patriotic people who support Bush have to admit that his pretense for war was based on false information, but nobody wants to admit that. They think "knocking out bad guys" is all the reason we need, but we don't go around knocking out all the other "bad guys" in the world.

Ultimately, Bush was wrong. Who's going to believe America from now on? It's about credibility. If we lose credibility, we lose everything.

But Kerry is a mess, too. Arg...

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), August 16, 2004.

Rushed??

You cannot be serious.

The Iraqi regime was stalling--and in all the time they were given, undoubtedly moved their weapons to another country.

They had more than 12 years to comply with the UN., and obviously were never going to. The UN is nothing more than a great debating society-- President Bush finally forced this illegal regime to comply with the same rules that all law abiding countries have to comply with. He did what no one else had the guts to do--even though he knew it would not make him popular. I trust a man with that kind of resolve and integrity.

It was no secret that Saddam was an evil man--and the world is far safer now : )

I would like to remind everyone that the reason for the war was not WMD--but because Saddam would not comply with the final resolution drawn up. Also., nuclear weapons were not the threat we were most worried about.

Bloody Friday

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 16, 2004.

Why in the world would the U.S. have to listen to the U.N.? Let me borrow a phrase from one of Bogart's movies--"Wee dun need no stinkin U.N.!" Bush was correct on getting a feel for the U.N.'s position on the Iraq situation, but that's all. The U.S. doesn't need permission from any other nation to invade or correct another nation. If the nation is terrorizing their own, we need to step in and put a stop to it--U.N. or no U.N.

..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 17, 2004.

Credibility? Huh? From who? The Germans, French, or Iranians? The only credibility the U.S. needs to show is strong arsenals and powerful government that will change an oppressed people into self- governing citizens with civil rights. If any one has lost their credibility it's them Germans, French, and other cowaring nations who went and hid from the U.S.

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 17, 2004.

Faith wrote, "John Kerry turned against his own fellow soldiers and accused them of atrocities that he said he participated in. He threw away his medals and became anti-American."

And this man wants to be president??? This man says one thing and does something else. Maybe he can define what the meaning of the word "is" is.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 17, 2004.

What do you guys think of this candidate?

http://www.constitutionparty.com/

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 17, 2004.

Never heard of him David--and I wouldn't waste my vote on someone who doesn't stand a chance.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 17, 2004.

Shouldn't a Christian be concerned with voting as Biblically as possible?

It's this black and white thinking that's the problem..

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 17, 2004.

This is a quote from their site:

"The Constitution Party is the only party which is completely pro- life, anti-homosexual rights, pro-American sovereignty, anti- globalist, anti-free trade, anti-deindustrialization, anti-unchecked immigration, pro-second amendment, and against the constantly increasing expansion of unlawful police laws, in favor of a strong national defense and opposed to unconstitutional interventionism."

http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_history.php

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 17, 2004.

I think a Christian should vote for someone who upholds the same values and beliefs. That why I don't have any hesitation. President Bush is a God-fearing man who does indeed see things the way I do. I find him to be an upstanding man of his word.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 17, 2004.

David,

If I thought a third party candidate had any chance of winning, I'd probably vote for this guy:

http://www.voteforjoe.com/

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), August 18, 2004.

"President Bush is a God-fearing man who does indeed see things the way I do. I find him to be an upstanding man of his word."

he's an extremist. once a drug addict/ alcoholic. now a "bible- basher" in extremis.

he's a bit like Mel Gibson - who's either completely off his rocks or bashing out another Rosary.

you need to be very careful around such people. they are unstable. they are not good leaders.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), August 19, 2004.

Well, Bush for president, not saviour. The people still control the government, not the other way around.

....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 19, 2004.

with respect, R, the disenfranchised negros of Florida might have wished to play a role in "controlling" the MILLIONAIRES that habitually rule America - and, hence, the World.

i'd take Bush before Mugabe, anyday - but as for Kerry or Bush, well, at least one of them did something for their country. they're both phoneys, but only one of them is a draft-dodger. they're both milionaires, but only one is a former crack-head. they're both "American Royal Family", but only one has thusfar pushed the barrel to - near as damn it - 50 bucks.

Bush has many deaths on his conscience. Coalition. indigenous. he's happy only because ....... mmmmmmmmm

the Pope does not like Mr Bush ie his "policies". for a Catholic, that ought to be enough.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), August 19, 2004.

Sure Ian..,

Vote for Kerry..,

That ought to please the Pope. Not!!

Kerry will make partial-birth abortion legal., gay marriage legal-- and he'll extend abortion rights by giving them all the money they need.

Yeah--good pick!!

Maybe he'll even manage to tax your butt to kingdom come and back again!!

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 19, 2004.

Hi Ian.

Yes, I can see your points. I don't think there is ever an ideal man for the job. Hey, I liked Nixon, even if he wasn't a "crook".

But, like I mentioned earlier, I don't want to get into a political debate. It can get real messy.

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 19, 2004.

Faith

point taken on abortion --- inasmuch as it is a far biger killer than war. i think there are over 1 million per year in the USA alone. that's truly shocking.

however, consider whether a legal ban would make a significant dent on those numbers. i would doubt it. back street abortion would have been very common when abortion was proscribed in the USA.

by the same token, not giving gays a piece of paper teling them they are "married" is not going to change a great deal. the media will see to that.

maybe, when it comes to politicians, i am to sceptical a person. but they sem to me to be in it for themselves. they will do what it takes to stay in power. exactly what is Bush doing lining up with Arnie? surely Arnie is a liberal? what has Arnie been promised?

don't get me wrong. just how can Kerry continue to call himself Catholic and pursue his liberal social agenda. maybe the Church should excommunicate him, because he will get votes just because people think he is Catholic whereas he seems to be the opposite.

i'm just not convinced, however, that he is any worse than Bush. i'm not going to go on and on with this war business, but it seems pretty clear to me that something funny is going on over there and innocent people across the world are paying a heavy price.

why hasn't he invaded Zimbabwe and liberated them from Mugabe?

what about Burmah and all the other terrible dictatorships?

the answers to these questions ay be in the "Plan for the New American Century". scary.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), August 20, 2004.

"why hasn't he invaded Zimbabwe and liberated them from Mugabe? "

Good question, Ian. I wonder that, too.

.......

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 20, 2004.

or Sudan,...

There is a genocide right there now.

But, no oil!!!!

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), August 20, 2004.

I'd rather vote for someone who has two tours of duty than someone who has five deferments(cheney)oh yea and Bush whose daddy managed to get him out going to vietnam. Also I am glad the Kerry stood up to what was going on in vietnam, it was very noble. There are two evils in this world, people who harm other people, and people who just sit back, watch, and do nothing about it!

-- Tina (sweetrose72_2000@yahoo.com), October 24, 2004.

Hi Tina and welcome!

You said something I think is both very important and true:

There are two evils in this world, people who harm other people, and people who just sit back, watch, and do nothing about it!

That's why I think voting for Kerry would be a mistake for anyone who is against aboprtion and the destruction of human embryos for research. IMO these are evils that must be stopped and voting for Kerry would help keep abortion legal. He would also likely remove the restriction from using human embryos for research, resulting in their destruction.

What do you think?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 25, 2004.

Failure to identify the enemy and to engage with the enemy to bring it to its natural end is not acceptable. The men and women who have accepted the duty of bringing the enemy down are they who are under the leadership of our president. Success cannot be measured so easily, but the sacrifices are counted and realized in our thoughts and prayers. Bush has his duty and that duty is inevitably unpopular,but necessary. Good terrorism is one that no longer exists, but even then it was always evil to begin with.

.......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 25, 2004.

Yes I will vote for Peroutka. Surely he will get about one percent of the vote (if that), but when I go before My Lord, I can say that I did all that I could for your babies. I hope that He says "Well done".

-- Mind made up (will@wont.com), October 25, 2004.

Hmm? What if you are asked what you did to keep evil at bay? What if your answer is "nothing"? How many were called to fight against evil in the Old Testament? What happened to those who did nothing?

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 25, 2004.

I don't understand what you meant by this:

"...I can say that I did all that I could for your babies. "

.......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 25, 2004.

As an American I can only operate within the law. Picket abortion clinics, march on Washington, and Vote FOR THE BABIES who cannot vote for thenselves. I do not have the right to decide that I can vote to murder even one baby. Those voting for Bush with the idea that they are saving 98% (which makes them feel good), will still have to answer for the two percent.It is not the n umbers that count, but the evil that does count.

-- mindmade up (will@wont.com), October 25, 2004.

Well, I can understand and accept your stance. But, it is the secular world than we interact with. We cannot have the ideal president; he is mortal, fallible, and human. I suppose the ideal situation for a Christian is for him/her not to vote for any person whose views are tainted with even a small spot of evil. So, where are the Christians who have spotless politcal/sacred platforms?

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 25, 2004.

I have one thing for you sir. I searched through your article for the following words and found none of them (in context). Poor. Sick. Lame. Widow. Orphan. Homeless.

I agree with your initial statement BUT not with your reasoning.

Yours... A citizen of the UK.

-- Matthew Evans (mevans6707@yahoo.com), October 25, 2004.

Matthew?

Whom are you addressing in your post?

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 25, 2004.

Ah! never mind. You are addressing this person--Dr. Patrick Johnston .

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 25, 2004.

As a committed christian, I think the bible is very clear on the issue of homosexuality (and some of the other things mentioned here). What I think is less clear is how we as christians should react to those outside the body of Christ on this issue. Jesus was primarily concerned with the showing love to the individuals, not to ratify the sin in their lives, but because his primary aim was to demonstrate God's love. I am deeply concerned that the way we treat individuals who find themselves with same-sex attractions is brutal and unloving. Of course, sometimes the loving thing to do is to be critical, but I don't see the way Jesus dealt with people reflected in the way we deal with those outside the church.

I also feel that when christianity and US politics interact, it is on a very few (and arbritrary) issues. The list of key areas that seem to interest most conservative christians within the US totally ignores other areas that may in fact be closer to God's agenda. If we take a look at the 'nazareth manifesto' where Jesus quoted Isaiah, here is what he said:

"The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."

Neither party fulfills this scripture, of course only Jesus does that. However, if we take this as our yardstick rather than a list of socially unnaceptable sins, where does it lead us? Is George W Bush or John Kerry better news for the poor? Who releases the oppressed? Who will help the millions of Americans without health insurance with their sight?

Given that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, why is it that we single out particular sins, particular groups of people that are different to us as worse? Why is it that we are so concerned about homosexuality and yet adultery is off our political agenda? In fact, why is a list of sins on our political agenda at all? Sin is important, but the expression of God's love to the poor, imprisoned and oppressed was clearly higher on Jesus' agenda.

If we fail to recognise our own sinfulness, and that this puts on the same level as the people we despise, we will be (as Jesus puts it) whitewashed tombs - clean and bright on the outside, but full of decay and death. Do we know better than that?

Have a good election!

David

-- David Evans (david.c.evans@edgeoftheinternet.net), October 26, 2004.

You ask some very good questions David E.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 26, 2004.

I do think though, that we Christians will be held accountable for our intentional vote in the political process that supports or promotes sin.

Some of the other "stuff" can be solved by prayer and by our participation in time and treasure with nongovernmental charities.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 26, 2004.

Just thought you might be interested in this article.

http://www.courier-journal.com/cjextra/editorials/2004/10/11/oped- stassen1011-5709.html

Peace

-- Bob Fretz (rwfretz@earthlink.net), October 26, 2004.

Homosexuality is not on the political agenda because of any Christian initiative. It is there because of the concerted efforts of homosexual groups to put it there. Now that they have succeeded in that effort, Christians - and everyone else - have to deal witrh it. Adultery is not on the political agenda because there are no pro-adultery groups lobbying to have adultery recognized as a legitimate "alternative life style", and no adulterers clamoring for the same rights as married couples. Therefore no defensive response to such an inititiative is required; therefore no political controversy has developed.

Abortion was not a political issue until pro-abortion groups forced it into the Supreme Court, the decisions of which affect us all. Anti-abortion activity on the part of Christians is not and was not an initiative. It is a self-defensive response to a direct attack on both the society we live in and our freedom of religion. If pro-abortion activists had not launched the attack, no response would be necessary and it would not be a divisive political issue. Also, the abortion controversy is not simply a battle of ideologies. You can debate the pros and cons of the social, moral, cultural and financial effects of homosexuality forever. But millions of people are being brutally slaughtered by abortion under the protection of the law. That fact demands a response.

Christians don't look for opportunities to force Christian beliefs into the political scene, other then by voting for candidates we see as morally sound. However, when others attempt to force anti-Christian, objectively immoral, culturally destructive positions upon us through political means, we must and will fight back.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 26, 2004.

A good answer by Paul. Unfortunatly, George Bush is a liberal, as he would make John Kennedy look like a far right conservative. Kerry, while not named so, is a communist in his "plans".

No matter who wins America Loses. It is on in the degree that it matters.

-- Meyer (Tradsky@aol.com), October 26, 2004.

Whose comments? Is it Willimans, Pastor Fretz?

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), October 26, 2004.

Paul,

You are attempting to make the Christian community “victims” in these discussions, the same way that Euro Americans were “victims” of African American belligerence seeking an end to lynching and Jim Crow laws, or men the “victims” of women rebellion when they sought equal pay and equal access. In the United States, the majority is not to use the law as a cudgel against its minority citizens.

In regard to abortion, the motivating factor for legalization was not politics but safety. By the mid 1960’s, 17 states had already limited or withdrawn abortion restrictions in response to the continuing illegal abortion (estimated in the area of 500,000 per year) and the physical danger associated with those illegal procedures. The Supreme Court simply created a uniform legal context for the medical procedure. For more information see - http://www.agi- usa.org/.

By the way, check on which administrations in the past 20 years had the greatest affect on reducing abortions (as noted above).

-- Bob Fretz (rwfretz@earthlink.net), October 26, 2004.

The article is by Glen Stassen who is the Lewis B. Smedes Professor of Christian Ethics at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, Calif. He formerly lived and taught in Louisville.

-- Bob Fretz (rwfretz@earthlink.net), October 26, 2004.

Am I to understand that sin can have legislation that would make it a safer sin?

So, unsafe sin is not acceptable in American society?

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 26, 2004.

Rod,

The state regulates many things to insure civil order and safety that we would/could identify as sin and potentially deadly behavior: Alcohol, tobacco, gambling/bingo (sorry, couldn’t resist that), recreational drug use, even speed limits on highways (from an Amish pov). If an abortion is going to happen, as it did before the 1960’s, why increase the death rates of women (usually poor and minorities) as well as the termination of the fetus?

What most studies have concluded is that the number of abortions decreases when women have hope for the future. That hope is usually tied to age and the economic prospect of not being impoverished. It can also be tied to our religious conviction, which is where we have the ability to enter in the decision making process.

Hope allows people to have a positive self image, personal independence, and a plan for the future. These elements enable a women to resist social pressure (particularly as a teenager) to be sexually active and to increase her level of education so she can live with her children above the poverty level. These elements were in place during the 1990’s in which the abortion rate decreased to the lowest level since 1973. Those rates have gone up since 2001.

-- Bob Fretz (rwfretz@earthlink.net), October 26, 2004.

We can find numerous reasons for having an abortion. Each reason will give "justification" for that act. There is only one reason for one to keep the child. That reason is the value of life. That value of life will destroy any number of reasons a person can conjure up for having an abortion. I know many people who have nothing, yet they have everything in their children.

The laws of the land offer solutions for allowing abortion. I do not see the laws as having any value for the individual human life that awaits being born in the womb. Poverty, oppression, risk, you name it, life still manages to live.

....................... ..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 26, 2004.

Rev. Fretz,

I am anti abortion, but do fear the prospect of a return to back alley abortion clinics and coat hangers.

Are you saying based on your research that abortions have actually decreased since 1973 R. v W.? With an uptic beginning in 2001?

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), October 26, 2004.

Actually they have decreased, Jim, but not because of the 1973 dcision. They actually have more sex, yet, less pregnancies.

Rather, females these days use the patch... They know that in The USA they no longer get that much good money for having kids.

I know: many of those are my students.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), October 26, 2004.

According to the reasoning here, we should not stop a bank holdup, because people might get killed or injured. If we take that reasoning we will have chaos.

Trouble is that some folks still cannot picture that baby in the womb as a human being with the rights of a full grown person.

-- Meyer (Tradsky@aol.com), October 26, 2004.

Perhaps it is difficult for some people to equate a fetus with a "full grown person". A good place to start would be to equate a baby 30 minutes before birth with the same baby 30 minutes after birth. Obviously one and the same person, just one hour older. Who in their right mind could accept that this baby is not a human being a half hour before birth, and could justifiably, morally and legally be slaughtered and thrown in the trash, yet an hour later is a human being with full constitutional rights? Of course, those rights are not immune from attack either. Some twisted congressman has already proposed legislation to allow parents a 3-day "grace period" (talk about a contradiction in terms!) AFTER the birth of a child, to decide whether they wish to "accept" that child or allow him/her to die.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 26, 2004.

I think the point I was attempting to make in my previous post was not done so clearly, so I will try and make it more directly. The homosexual community feel that they and their rights are under a viscous attack from christian groups. The reason that they feel like this is quite simple in my opinion: because they ARE under attack! The issue of whether or not they have sin in their lives is moot - everyone does. If Jesus were here, would he be attacking the homosexual community, or finding ways to express God's love to them?

In the US, the law does not prevent Christians from trying to live according to God's standards. Why on earth should we be trying to effectively legislate the Torah, and apply it to those outside the church?

My personal viewpoint is that people with same-sex-attractions should be free to have their legal status in line with their actual, practical status. This doesn't change what marriage is - marriage is a state before God, and a very well-defined one!

As to abortion, I don't think anyone actually likes it! There is a very real debate about when a human being becomes a human being, and if there was a clearly correct answer we would have it. My real irritation here is that legislations has to have a pragmatic edge to it. If you legislate against it, knowing full well that the abortions will increase, along with the health risk to mothers, then that is abhorent to me.

As I said before, these issues are pretty random ones to choose. I don't argue that it is good to discuss abortion with those outside the church. However, it does appear to the external eye to be another example of christian dogma forced on the unwilling. Simply failing to legislate acording to our wishes is not oppression; it's democracy.

-- David Evans (david.c.evans@edgeoftheinternet.net), October 27, 2004.

Hi David E.

"My personal viewpoint is that people with same-sex-attractions should be free to have their legal status in line with their actual, practical status. This doesn't change what marriage is - marriage is a state before God, and a very well-defined one! "

Your personal viewpoint is very difficult to equate with God's wil, that is if you are implying that a marriage between same sex partners is permitted by God. I can't find anywhere in Scriptures that would support your viewpoint in regards to marriage in the homosexual sense. If anything, I believe Scriptures supports the idea that such a marriage is against His will. But, I do agree that all sinners should have a "legal status", even those who are convicted of crimes should have their "legal status"--incarceration or appropriate penalties.

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 27, 2004.

Jim,

The article by Professor Stassen is noting the decline of abortions at its highest point in 1990 to its lowest point (about even with the rate – live birth to abortion ratio – in 1973, similar to abortion rates - legal and illegal- of the earlier decades. See WWW.AGI- SUA.ORG)

The simple fact is, in the 1980’s (Republican administrations) abortion (total and rate) went up and in the 1990’s, abortion (total and rate) went down (Democratic administration). According to Stassen (Pro-life), the total and rate of abortions has been going up since 2001 – a Republican administration.

Paul,

Remember, we are talking about legal abortions. You know there isn’t a state in the union that would allow such a procedure and it is illegal under Roe v. Wade. Again, stick with the facts. About 89% of abortions take place in the first trimester. 10% take place in the second trimester (usually due to delays attributed to lack of finances, lack of providers, and hoping the relationship with the father improves in the course of the pregnancy).

Approximately .01% take after the 25th week. Legal protection of the fetus by Roe v. Wade and medical protection of the mother make the practice a last resort to prevent physical danger to the mother. That accounts for less than 200 legal late term abortions according to AGI 2000 statistics (less than 100 according to NIH 2000) due to medical necessity for the life of the mother.

As to the rights of a fetus (a conversation we have had earlier) I agree; a fetus has the same rights, but no more, than a post birth child has in demanding a blood transfusion or live organ donation from a parent to preserve its life. While the Christian parent is morally obligated to preserve the life of the child, even to the point of self sacrifice (partial or complete), the state cannot coerce such an action. It is in that third trimester that the state supports the agreement to bring the fetus to term the mother has made to the fetus implicit by completing the first two trimesters.

-- Bob Fretz (rwfretz@earthlink.net), October 27, 2004.

Paul

"Some twisted congressman has already proposed legislation to allow parents a 3-day "grace period" (talk about a contradiction in terms!) AFTER the birth of a child, to decide whether they wish to "accept" that child or allow him/her to die."

this is possibly the sickest thing i have ever heard.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 27, 2004.

Oops. That's www.agi-usa.org

-- Bob Fretz (rwfretz@earthlink.net), October 27, 2004.

Yes, Ian, that is sick. Barbara Boxer of California (Clinton's sister-in-law) proposed the same thing several years ago. And isn't it odd that the PRESS NEVER REVEALS THESE THINGS! Interesting, huh!

But I'm afraid it even gets worse than that. About a year or so ago I was listening to NPR (National Public Radio), a well known syndicated "news" outlet. The guest was Professor Peter Singer of Harvard (I believe) University. It was his suggestion that a child (or thing) does not become a person until around the age of "1 or 2" and that hence, parents should be allowed until that time to decide whether the thing should be allowed to live or not.

I heard it with my own ears and YOU KNOW WHAT THE WORST THING OF IT WAS -- the interviewer never FLINCHED! It was as if they were discussing the recipe for apple pie!

People need to wake up in this country. Next it will be old people, then it will be the infirmed. This ain't science fiction, though it does sound like something out of a Stephen King novel!

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), October 27, 2004.

Gail

my youngest is only 16 months old as we speak. i truly feel sick right now.

i cannot think of a single person that would concievably consider it proper to terminate a child. some might condone abortion, but not in a million years something such as this.

where do these people come from?

i think you are right. much of Catholic teaching makes sense on the "thin edge of the wedge" argument alone.

i've been thinking today about people that *chose* not to have kids. i was just asking myself who would be tending these people in hosptial when they are old and grey. my kids? so who then tends me?

that might sound selfish but i am arguing on secular grounds. people aren't just running away from religion. they're abandoning all sense of responsibility.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 27, 2004.

I forget the spelling, but remember Soylent Green? Socially accepted and necessary suicide for population control and quality of life (for others who live on).

.......

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 27, 2004.

Let’s keep the conversation honest.

Senator Boxer never supported post birth infanticide and spoke against it in her debate with Senator Santorum regarding the amendment she supported in the ban on the D & E procedure which would make an exception when the life of the mother was in jeopardy.

Professor Singer is at Princeton (arriving in 1999 amidst many protests in NJ, including members of the Board of Directors, including Steve Forbes.) He is regarded as the father of modern animal rights. When he was speaking about “infanticide” he was talking about children with severe mental and physical disabilities that demanded extraordinary medical care or operations for the child’s survival.

The fact is, these decisions are already made by parents of children with severe disabilities, albeit passively, by withholding extraordinary medical care. (I have spoken against such actions by parents in earlier discussions.) Singer was advocating an active euthanasia within 28 days of birth for children who would not be sentient or to prevent suffering caused by organ failure or the inability to take in fluids and nutrients.

Boxer and Singer were not talking about the same thing. Boxer was stating her concern for the mortal life of the mother. Singer was establishing a cognitive and requirement for existence. Boxer was part of the ongoing discussion as to “when” every human’s legal rights begin. Singer was raising the question “if” legal protection will be afforded to any individual depending on his or her cognitive and physical ability.

You may disagree with Boxer’s position, but at least she is on the same page of the discussion. Singer is not in the same book.

-- Bob Fretz (rwfretz@earthlink.net), October 27, 2004.

Hi Bob,

I am not referring to Senator Boxer's debate with Senator Sanatori but rather this

. . . And on the floor of Congress, Senator Barbara Boxer gave her nod in this direction when she suggested that "when you bring your baby home" it only THEN should qualify for constitutional human rights. Barbara Boxer, Congressional Record, (October 20, 1999) S12878-80.

I heard her make this comment some years back and it was never reported on. I don't see that she's so different than Singer AT ALL!

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), October 27, 2004.

Dear Gail;

The Senator from California also said this during the debate with Sen. Santorum on October 20, 1999:

Sen. Boxer: I don't believe in killing any human being. That is absolutely correct. Nor do you, I am sure.

The transcripts were obtained by The Shinbone from the National Right to Life Committee. The NRLC transcribed the exchanges from C-SPAN. You can read them at http://shinbone.home.att.net/congtran.1.htm

I would suggest that the commentary you quoted is taken out of context. There is a significant difference between Boxer and Singer.

-- Bob Fretz (rwfretz@earthlink.net), October 27, 2004.

Does anyone reading this forum honestly think that if Jesus turned up on CNN on election night he'd say "hey, vote Bush because he's anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage"?

Come on, let's hear what you think he'd say, it might be fun.

I'll throw in my twopennyworth here: "Hey everyone, just chill out for a moment and dismount those high horses. The best way to bring my kingdom about is not to shove it's principles in peoples faces, but to live it yourselves.

Don't force my way on people who don't want it, instead set the example and be the gold standard. If you get it right then they'll decide they want to be like you themselves - and then they'll be like me too."

-- Matthew Evans (mevans6707@yahoo.com), October 28, 2004.

Well, you may be right on that Bob. I couldn't find the complete context, just that one little blurb. Thanks for the info.

Matthew, we have to do the best with what we have, don't we! We vote for people who MOST CLOSELY represents our beliefs as Christians, just as you vote for folks who most represent your convictions.

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.netg), October 28, 2004.

Well, hear is my .02 :

"Make two lines. Line 'A' is for all of you who believe in me and have exemplified a life faithful to Me. Line 'B'.....I'll be with you in a moment, wait here."

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 28, 2004.

Rod, I'm guessing that in line A what you mean by "exemplified a life faithful to Me" is:

For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.

And line B (the naughty people):

For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

Because he goes on to talk about them saying: Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?...

And I just wonder if some of those people will be saying "But Lord, I voted for the person who didn't feed you or clothe you or help you because they were against homosexuality which I thought was more important."

-- Matthew Evans (mevans6707@yahoo.com), October 28, 2004.

You think the Democrates will feef the poor? Harldy, they love poverty as it increases their ability to raise taxesand get bigger govenrment...

That said, why do you think that Homoseuxality is a small isuse? desnt God call it an abominaiton? heck he wiped out two whole cities over the issue... yeah you may want to re-evaluate soemthign here...

Besides, as noted the Dems dotn have a good record of human service...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 28, 2004.

I would suggest we vote for the candidate whose party's previous administration:

Reformed welfare, reduced the size of government, secured Social Security until the middle of the new century, had a huge budget surplus - it worried Greenspan that we were paying off the debt too quickly, had a positive growth of Jobs (25 million, I believe), lowered crime by getting more cops on the beat, protected American soil from terrorists - including the Millennial plot for LAX, created a NATO (real) alliance to deal with Bosnia and Serbia... oh, right, and lowered the number and rate of abortions.

Except for creating a tax break that gave over 50% of the cash to the top 2% income earners (during a war not less - why does a millionaire need another $50,000 while a minimum wage earner is only getting $10,000 a year), not to mention the most recent tax give away to special interests - about $150 billions worth, with not clue as to how to pay for it... This administration has plunged us into a darkness of debt, unemployment, and fear that is only matched by the last President that presided over a net loss of jobs in the last century, Herbert Hoover (remember the Crash of 29) - oh, right, and an increase in the rate and number of abortions.

I realize this is a bit rambling, but it is late, so good night

-- Bob Fretz (rwfretz@earthlink.net), October 28, 2004.

With all due respect Pastor, I think the better route would be to make a decision based on the platform each candidate currently supports. The Democrats and Republicans of today do not necessarily abide by the same principles that the Democrats and Republicans of yesteryear did. There are also both good and bad things that happened in all administrations throughout history. How far back shold we count history? I don't think it would be a valid argument to say we should vote for George Bush because Lincoln was a Republican.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 28, 2004.

Do Bob and Matthew REALLY expect us to fall for this liberal line of garbage!

If the Dems were so all-fired up about rescuing the poor and needy, then why have they turned their backs on the littlest, most helpless people in our nation -- the unborn? Kerry even thinks that pulling a baby out of the birth canal feet first with nothing but the head in the birth canal, and plunging scizzors in the skull to suck the brains out, should be LEGAL. (And don't give me that "health exception" baloney. The baby is already 9/10 out of the birth canal. THERE IS NO EXCEPTION at this point)

You know what, you guys can spitter and spatter all you want, CRY because your pocket books are taking a hit, and take your little pocket books to the voting booth and vote with it. BUT DON'T COME ON THIS BOARD ACTING LIKE YOU HAVE THE MORAL HIGHGROUND!

And Matthew, what's with all the scripture quotes? How come they don't apply to the unborn? Why don't you quote the scriptures about INFANTICIDE from the Old Testament! Or about the slaying of children before the god Molech in the valley of megiddo?

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), October 29, 2004.

Dear Andy,

I am not talking about 50 years ago, but 5 years ago – before and during this current administration. As to platforms… as pointed out by our Catholic brothers and sisters on this board – talk is cheap. What is more important, talking a good line against abortion while more abortions take place, or giving a woman the freedom to choose and have her choose wisely? The 1990’s proved that we were on the right track and the last four years have derailed the downward turn.

Gail, please stay with reality. Compare the late term abortions statistics with women’s pregnancy morbidity statistics. Things such as sudden uncontrollable high blood pressure, infection, and fetal failure (the baby is dead in the womb) more than match the .01% of late term abortions in the United States. At that point, it is a medical decision of the physician on site to determine the safest course for the woman.

Legally, infanticide and abortion are two distinctly different things. Infanticide is the post birth murder. Legal early abortion is the decision of a woman not to provide the body parts and environment for the fetus (voluntary body/organ donation). Late term abortion , as statistics show, is only legal for the safety of the mother.

Morally, infanticide is a sin because it is murder. Early term abortion is a sin because it is an act of faithlessness in God (the same as a parent not offering their post birth child a kidney or liver lobe to survive). As others have pointed out, such as Paul, in the late term – if an abortion is caused as a side affect for a medical treatment to save the life of the mother, it is not a sin (such as reducing an infection, cancer, or to lower morbid blood pressure).

-- Bob Fretz (rwfretz@earthlink.net), October 29, 2004.

Dear Pastor Fretz,

I see your point and apologize for taking things to the extreme.

What is more important, talking a good line against abortion while more abortions take place, or giving a woman the freedom to choose and have her choose wisely?

Helping women choose wisely is certainly more important than paying lip service to stopping abortion. Abortion is never a wise choice though. Perhaps more effort should be placed in supporting women who choose life.

The 1990’s proved that we were on the right track and the last four years have derailed the downward turn.

A small downward trend (per centage wise) does not necessarily prove we were on the right track to ending abortion. There may have been other factors involved that you have not taken into account. I'm not sure, to tell you the truth.

Are you implying that keeping abortion legal will lead to the end of abortion? Even if that's the case, what about the children being killed until that time comes? I wonder if that reasoning would have worked for the end to other evils like child labor, slavery, and segregation. Will legalizing heroin, crack, and cocaine mean the end to drug abuse?

In the case of abortion, the stakes are much higher. We're talking about ending the lives of innocent human beings in a very horrible and painful manner. How is this different than the slaying of children before the god Molech, as Gail pointed out?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 29, 2004.

Gail, I am not in any way saying that I think abortions are great, I don't. I'm saying I think gay marriage is a good idea either... I'm just saying that there might be other issues that take precedence. Having said that, the democrats might not be the people to make that happen... but I don't think that George Bush is going to either.

So why not get into politics and then you can make me, and you happy! Start a party that's going to do the right thing for a change, surely as most Americans are good people they will vote for it too?

-- Matthew Evans (mevans6707@yahoo.com), October 29, 2004.

Here's my point gentlemen: When a person such as Senator Kerry can claim to be Catholic and yet vote repeatedly in favor of abortion, that tells me a lot about his character. When a Senator or politician votes to authenticate gay marriages, that tells me a lot about his morality.

Character and morality are big issues to me. I have been extremely critical of George Bush (maybe on this thread, but certainly on others). I am very suspicious of his true motives. I also don't believe that just because someone says they're a Christian and uses the right "buzz" words that they automatically get my vote.

To be quite honest, both of these guys scare the living daylights out of me for completely different reasons. First, they're both Skull & Bones members. Secondly, Kerry seems to have an identity crisis much like Gore. Thirdly, I'm just not quite sure Bush is who he presents himself to be! I don't think anyone on this forum, Matthew, is making a cavalier stereotypical "Christian" vote at the booth Tuesday!

Gail

P.S. We have come along way scientifically speaking since Roe v. Wade. We now know the child has a detectible heartbeat, I think within weeks of conception. We can see pictures of a child in the womb sucking his them, playing with his hair (two traits my daughter continued to have outside the womb) We couldn't do that before. I think in light of recent scientific developments abortion needs to be reevaluated if we are going to be a culture that embraces life. What is it now . . . 40 MILLION babies. That's a lot of blood that cries out for justice!

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), October 29, 2004.

Gail is right on the money. It has always been my policy to never fort for an abortion advocate. If they will kill an innocent baby, what chance do you think that you will have in trusting them. None!

-- Bucky (zoo@i.com), October 30, 2004.

Gail: I agree with the blood on the hands. Our pastor preaches that alot. Back in the 80's I worked for a pro-life movement, we showed pics of aborted babies, back then, we were called liars, etc....nobody seemed to "get it" Partial birth abortion was an awful thing. I saw the pictures, people said "you all doctored up those pics" now these are proven to be truth. Sad. Nobody believed they were using these babies for experiments either. But they were. Churches need to be endorsing "no prayer 1st, no vote"

----Never go to polls without going on your knee's

-- world (not@of.this), October 30, 2004.

Dear Andy;

What I have been saying is that the Democratic administration (8 years) in the last 24 years was able to get the numbers of abortions (annually) down to what the pre Roe v. Wade numbers. No matter how you measure it (180 degree turn around or 20-25% drop) it is not insignificant. The Republican administrations (16 years) oversaw increases or leveling off at the highest levels in 1990-92 (a 40-50% increase – remember a 10% increase is the same number as a 5% decrease from a base line. That’s why when the stock market drops 10% you have to have a 20% increase to get even.)

Gail, as for blood on our hands and science advancing: Consider the ability of organ transplants, along with marrow and platelet transfusion. Yet, how many people die because someone – particularly family members – refuse to make the transfusion or live organ donation? How many people fail to make their organs available post mortem insuring that a transplant recipient will never get a call? .

If able, no Christian should refuse to be a live donor to their child and no Christian should refuse to be a post mortem organ donor. That failure insures the death of another person. It is immoral and a sin to which we will be answerable to God.

But no one, including me, is suggesting or would accept the idea that the state could demand post mortem or live organ donations/ transfusions.

The proven way (remember the facts) to lower abortion and increase organ/transfusion donations is the same: a supportive community, a secure future, and education (factual and moral) – all with the understanding that it is the right of the donor to make the decision and not the government to coerce the action.

-- Bob Fretz (rwfretz@earthlink.net), October 30, 2004.

Gail, thanks for assuring me that you're not all crazy and that you will be voting intelligently! I'll leave you guys to your debates as after all, it isn't actually my country!

-- Matthew Evans (mevans6707@yahoo.com), October 30, 2004.

Bob, you said "What I have been saying is that the Democratic administration (8 years) in the last 24 years was able to get the numbers of abortions (annually) down to what the pre Roe v. Wade numbers." Exactly how did they do that, Bob? How is the Democratic party -- the party who has repeatedly ensured that every woman, for any reason, at any time, could have her child disembodied and removed from her womb -- responsible for a DEcrease in abortions?

YOU are living in La-La Land if you think the Dems had a hand in decreasing abortions.

To echo someone above, and to expand on something I said earlier, a man, or woman who cannot or will not see the barbarianism of abortion and/or partial birth abortion, and who repeatedly legislates laws to ensure that these types of heinous acts can continue, shows me that they hold human life to be of ZERO value. And if you can't get THAT right, then you can't get ANYTHING right! That is why I will NEVER EVER EVER vote for a pro-abortion candidate. Their consciences have been seared as with a hot branding iron. They cannot know right from wrong. They have no moral compass whatsoever in which to govern their own lives, much less the life of the country.

Abortion is an ABOMINATION BEFORE THE CREATOR, and anyone who votes to legalize this abomination is likewise a stench in the nostrils of God . . . and that includes your Senator Boxer!

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), October 30, 2004.

So Gail, your going to vote for the party that has only ever been able to create a society that has increased the number of abortions?

Good move.

-- Bob Fretz (rwfretz@earthling.net), October 30, 2004.

Neither Kerry or Bush are prize candidates, but Bush is the far better choice. One cannot depend on Kerry to chaange his mind on a daily basis, or even an hourly basis, Like Bush or not, at least you know whaat you aare getting and can vote accordingly

-- Me (Tootsiegal@aol.com), October 30, 2004.

Dear Pastor Fretz,

Any decrease in abortions is a good sign. You are correct that the numbers are not insignificant. I am not convinced yet that the election of a Democrat president, or control of the Congress by Democrats is what caused the decrease in abortions (or will decrease abortions in the future). What specific policies by previous Democrat presidents do you think resulted in the decrease in abortions? Didn't Clinton allow US money to be used by the UN for aborions as part of its poulation control policies? Wouldn't that in itself help to increase abortions worldwide?

I see abortion as the legalized torture and murder of innocents. It is horrific and there is no justification for it. I don't understand how keeping abortion legal will eradicate abortion. I don't see it as a necessary evil.

If your premise is correct, electing a Democrat may decrease the number of abortions, but it will never be eradicated. I cannot in good conscience vote for a candidate who wants to allow people to kill their unborn children on demand.

Of course, making it abortion illegal can result in more illegal abortions and is not the sole solution to the problem. That's why we need good support for women who choose life.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 31, 2004.

I asked you, Bob, how it is that the Democratic, pro-abortion party, is somehow responsible for the decrease in abortions, and this is what you said: "So Gail, your going to vote for the party that has only ever been able to create a society that has increased the number of abortions?"

I take you cannot make the case using anything evidentiary . . .?

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), October 31, 2004.

Actually, let me give you a reason why abortion rates may have declined in the 1990's. From the limited data that I have seen, most abortions are obtained by girls and women who are 25 years old and younger. In the 1990's I know that the proportion of 18-24 year olds dropped significantly, one of the side effects of that drop is fewer abortions. About five years ago, the proportion of 18-24 year olds has increased, which of course could explain the increase in the number of abortions.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), November 01, 2004.

"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own." Thomas Jefferson

-- bromis (bromis@bioactive.org), November 02, 2004.

Wasn't Thomas Jefferson a Deist rather than a Christian?

-- Andy S ("ask3332994@yahoo.com"), November 02, 2004.

He also commited high treason againt hr the crown, a fact amwericans revel in...

Besides that. thsi great man whp stood firm agaisnt hre tryanny of religion also:

Owbned slaves, and aided the slave inducsry, making it a strong, powerful instetution.

Had children by slaves. Often agaisn thteir will.

Betrayed the Cherokee people, and evicted them form their own lands so his new "United States" coudl take over.

Thought women shoudl nevewr be allowed to vote.

yeah great guy...

Sorry, I dotn pay the reverence to Jefferson you Yanks do...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 02, 2004.

Dear Andy; No doubt that decrease comes into play, but it match the full drop in the rate as well as the number of abortions.

Gail, I identified most of the reasons for the decrease in the previous posts - in short; education (content and opportunities) for both mother and child, secure economic present and future (jobs), and a supportive community (health care, child care, housing).

OK guys - its time to vote! Blessings on you all and God bless America.

-- Bob Fretz (rwfretz@earthlink.net), November 02, 2004.

Sorry, that should read:

"...it does not match the full drop...

-- Bob Fretz (rwfretz@earthlink.net), November 02, 2004.

education (content and opportunities) for both mother and child

wrong. back in the clinton era a group of pro lifers travelled around the country with a couple of pregnant women going to different planned parenthood locations. they made one hundred stops pretending to be interested in procuring an abortion. out of those hundred stops, if i remember correctly, only SEVEN TIMES were they ever counselled on keeping the child. the other 93 times they were simply told the procedure to have their abortion.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 02, 2004.

who you calling a yank Zar?

-- bromis (bromis@bioactive.org), November 02, 2004.

Bob says:

"Gail, I identified most of the reasons for the decrease in the previous posts - in short; education (content and opportunities) for both mother and child, secure economic present and future (jobs), and a supportive community (health care, child care, housing)."

I saw a study that suggested that 75% of the reduction in abortions during this time period was due to increased use of contraception. That doesn't sound like much of an achievement, particularly since most of the abortions are performed on the unmarried.

Also, can you cite a well designed study that has demonstrated that the factors you suggest have actually contributed to the decline in abortions? The professor in me wants to see the real numbers. Thanks.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), November 02, 2004.

James said: The professor in me wants to see the real numbers.

James, you are a professor?? What subject? I never knew!

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), November 02, 2004.

Bromis- Yank, shrot for Yankee, means American. Only Americans, to my knwoeldge, palce Jefferson on such a pedestool and make him some authority never to be wqurastioned, and overlook his less than desireable traits...

I oculd care less what the traitor said. He was twice a traitor to boot. He brtrayed his naiton to form his illicit new nation, and then betrayed the Cherokee peopels who had foolihly supported him.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 02, 2004.

James, I'm with Emily -- SAY WHAT! A professor? Do tell us James- with-the-stinky cat!

Bob, you are making nothing more than a frivolous correlation between the decrease in abortions and your guys in office.

Prolifers are working hard at changing the hearts and minds of the people. Why do you not credit the decrease on THAT!

Is that what you have to tell yourself to convince yourself that your vote is morally okay . . . in order to somehow convince yourself that the guys putting the scalpels in the hands of the doctors are responsible for a DECREASE! You may be able to convince yourself of this Bob, but I doubt you'll convince Him!

Voting with one's pocketbook at the expense of the lives of the innocent is morally reprehensible and a disgrace for any so-called child of God to throw their vote that way.

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), November 02, 2004.

Gail, a quick (hypothetical) question for you...

If the choice was between a pro-abortion candidate who was otherwise a pretty regular guy and a guy who promised to ban abortion but... exterminate all Jews, Muslims and Sikhs in the country... which guy would you vote for?

Obviously that's not the case here but I'm just trying to make the point that there might be a point at which abortion is not the most important issue.

If you agree that is so, then it's just a question of where you draw that line - and perhaps your line is different to Bob on this?

-- Matthew Evans (mevans6707@yahoo.com), November 02, 2004.

James;

That might indeed make up for some of drop in the numbers of abortions, but it does not fully explain the rate (29% to 21% if memory serves) since the effectiveness of birth control systems did not change significantly during the 1990’s.

What did increase was the number of women who waited to a higher age to be sexually active or lessened (or stopped) sexual activity. Generally these things occur due to goals that demand personal commitment and time. People with a higher level of goal setting have a greater ability for delayed gratification.

Or as John Wesley (I think it was him) said, “A sin avoided is a sin conquered.” A pregnancy avoided is an abortion conquered (prevented).

Paul;

I do not carry any water for Planned Parenthood. My own experience with our local clinic was not particularly positive. However, I attribute that to the level of rhetoric they endure when dealing with the Protestant Right and Catholic RTL organizations. I suppose you could see it as a “Chicken and egg” problem. Was Planned Parenthood initially hostile to religious groups and individuals, or did they become hostile when religious groups verbally and physically intimidate their staff and clients.

I was not talking about specific “don’t do abortion” education promoted by RTL groups. I was talking about the general education of women for life skills and employment along with the quality of education a young mother can obtain for her self and child after birth.

By the time she enters a clinic or hospital, she has already gone through it a thousand times in her own mind, with someone she trusts, and hopefully the father. If she is under 18, statistics show that she has most likely confided to at least one of her parents. An interesting point should be noted; that pre-college single women are more likely to carry the child to term – but, they are less likely to have used birth control.

Whereas, the vast majority of college women and married women who had abortions were actively using birth control and had no intention of being pregnant (I know that is counter intuitive for our Catholic friends).

Zarove;

As one who is will be joining the Sons of the Revolution and the Sons of the Colonies - a few words:

First, Remember Yorktown.

Second, Jefferson believed that it was good for a country to have a revolution on a regular basis - and we have been doing it every four years in our presidential elections. Jefferson had a clear insight to the potential of democracy (even if he was unable to sustain that image himself). Through the calling of each citizen to act upon their moral and political responsibilities – particularly in choosing elected leaders – the society was governed in good order upholding the rights of its citizens and withstanding the excessive power of the government. Democracy is stronger than hierarchy because its strength is in the foundation of the people.

Finally; If you don’t like how it works (or the people who started it) you know where the door is.

-- Bob Fretz (rwfretz@earthlink.net), November 02, 2004.

Bob says:

"That might indeed make up for some of drop in the numbers of abortions, but it does not fully explain the rate (29% to 21% if memory serves) since the effectiveness of birth control systems did not change significantly during the 1990’s.

What did increase was the number of women who waited to a higher age to be sexually active or lessened (or stopped) sexual activity."

What about utilization rates of birth control, even if they have not become more effective, a higher utilization and utilization of those techniques where the theoretical effectiveness is close to the practical effectiveness could reduce the number of pregnancies.

Also, what data did you use to find that most women lessened or stopped or delayed their sexual activity during this time period?

Bob also said:

"A pregnancy avoided is an abortion conquered (prevented)."

Abortions avoided are desireable, but not all methods used to avoid abortions are equally morally desireable.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), November 02, 2004.

Emily,

I am an economics professor. I teach in a public university, which is hardly a hotbed of christian values, but I love the students. The more I teach, the more thankful I am that I chose this profession.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), November 02, 2004.

Bob says:

"Whereas, the vast majority of college women and married women who had abortions were actively using birth control and had no intention of being pregnant (I know that is counter intuitive for our Catholic friends)."

Actually this is not counterintuitive at all. Abstinance is the only effective, reliable method of birth control. That why the Church goes to great lengths to stress that the proper place for sexual activity is within a loving marriage. It is within this environment that we are best able to lovingly deal with the unexpected consequences of sexual activity.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), November 02, 2004.

James:

I do not know if there was a significant increase (rate) of birth control between the 80's and 90's, so you may be correct regarding total numbers. However, AGI indicated that the effectiveness of birth control did not increase - if I read that article correctly.

I believe it was a Gallup poll done in the late 1990's to explain the drop of abortions and single mothers. I will attempt to find it on the internet. Sorry I can't give you more on that. My computer died this summer and I lost all my archived documents and links.

As to your last point - I was talking about having sex (including married couples) without the intent of having a baby, as being counter intuitive with Catholic theology. However, I agree with the point you made completely. If a pregnant woman is assured of her place in the community, feels safe about the future, and experiences the love of her church, she is more likely to choose to bring the child to term.

-- Bob Fretz (rwfretz@earthlink.net), November 02, 2004.

Dear Gail;

The Republican Administrations talked alot, appointed new Supreme Court justices, and turned a blind eye to harassment by RTL goups between 1980 to 1990 and all we saw was an increase of abortions.

The Democrates figured out the way to reduce abortions is to lower the demand for them by having a secure future for the mother through the education, jobs, and health care. You can have a clinic on every street corner and if there is no demand for their services, they will be empty.

-- Bob Fretz (rwfretz@earthlink.net), November 02, 2004.

FREZT- Why cant we do Both? why is it an either or thing?

-- Zar (Zaroff3@juno.com), November 02, 2004.

Because the former disenfranchises women and the later promotes their self determination (helping them become more productive citizens) within a supportive community. They are opposites.

-- Bob Fretz (rwfretz@earthlink.net), November 02, 2004.

"The Republican Administrations talked alot, appointed new Supreme Court justices, and turned a blind eye to harassment by RTL goups between 1980 to 1990 and all we saw was an increase of abortions."

A; No, that isn't all we saw. We saw hundreds of innocent children and their mothers saved from the horror of abortion by selfless pro-life citizens who were willing to undergo any personal hardship for the sake of those who would otherwise be exploited in their time of need by a bloodthirsty abortion industry.

"The Democrates figured out the way to reduce abortions is to lower the demand for them by having a secure future for the mother through the education, jobs, and health care."

A: Yeah, right. Rhetoric has always been their specialty. That was apparent in the campaign as Kerry told us he was going to fix every problem in sight, but never provided a clue as to how he was planning on doing so. The plain fact is, teenage girls who become pregnant do not have a secure future. Period. They haven't finished high school. What kind of educatutional opportunities can be offered to them? What kind of jobs can be offered to them to make them self-sufficient and allow them to raise a child? Just so much smoke blowing in the wind. He might as well say "I'm going to bring all the troops home". Oh wait, he did say that, though he didn't mention any particular plan that might make it possible. Rhetoric. As for health care for pregnant girls who can't afford it, it is already available free of charge through pro-life organizations, as are many other benefits.

As long as you have an abortuary on ANY street corner, children will continue to be brutally slaughtered and their mothers will continue to be physically, emotionally and spiritually ravaged. Mr. Kerry has intends to make sure that nothing will change this scenario.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 02, 2004.

this is why I hate partisanism...

OK, what if we did this.

elected Supreme coutn judges that where pro-life only, and made abortion illegal because its mruder, then reduced the problems such as low self esteem, Poverty, and provided support and education for women, why are these tow thigns not posisble with each other?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.CIM), November 02, 2004.

The discussion is now moot. Bush seems to be the victor...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 03, 2004.

Zar: Key word "appears, seems to be the victor", well maybe not can anyone say 2000?

-- world (not@of.this), November 03, 2004.

"The Democrates figured out the way to reduce abortions is to lower the demand for them by having a secure future for the mother through the education, jobs, and health care. You can have a clinic on every street corner and if there is no demand for their services, they will be empty."

Wow, Bob, the democrats are AMAZING, doing all of that while receiving "blood money" from groups like NARAL and NOW? What a coup they have pulled off!

THE VALUES VOTERS HAVE SPOKEN, BOB!!!!!

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), November 03, 2004.

The president has the senate and does not have to run again, so he had better produce some good judges or wehave again been had. I hope not. Pray for him.

-- T-C (Teadmill234@south.com), November 03, 2004.

"The discussion is now moot. Bush seems to be the victor..."

Exactly!!!

Yea!!!!

God does answer our prayers!!!

Elpidio, you might as well delete this thread since the President has been re-elected... and as Zarove posted above, "The discussion is now moot"...

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 04, 2004.

Bob says:

"The Democrates figured out the way to reduce abortions is to lower the demand for them by having a secure future for the mother through the education, jobs, and health care. You can have a clinic on every street corner and if there is no demand for their services, they will be empty."

I am not sure I buy the link that having access to jobs and education causes people to embrace God's plan for our sexuality. There are some well educated, highly paid people who may not have abortions, but they are living sexually immoral lives.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), November 05, 2004.

Modern prophecy has to be fulfilled, Kevin.

I always wonder why Bush was shot in my dream from April 2003. And also why I was told he was one of 123 that will die within the next 3 years.

Many of us might diagree with the President, Kevin.

And the great majority who diasagree with him we do it through peaceful protests or the ballot box.

But there are people who have lost brothers, husbands,...in Iraq. There are Iraqis who have lost property or relatives in Iraq or Afganistan.

There are also Haitians.....

One of them holds a grudge....this person will wait for the right time, somehow before May 2005 comes.....

But before that happens, the clue will be the death of the Pope. He must die before Bush.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), November 05, 2004.

I am an economics , Spanish literature, religion,and math majors, James.

I started my masters in economics at Long Beach state but had to drop.

I ended up being a High School Math Teacher.

I am actually a facts oriented person.

Except for my dreams....

Right now I am afraid there is a bubble about to burst in the real estae market, especially in California. So many people refinanced in the last 2 years, that that extra money kept the econmy going.

Can you imagine if now that the market began to cool off, we have prices going down?

Scary...

It already happened here in 1993-1994. It happened in Japan with harder consequences.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), November 05, 2004.

Elpidio

the US economy is in a state. and when the US sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold.

the good news is that the Japanese, Chinese, Saudis and so on cannot afford to let the US tank. they will bail it out, if they can. however, Pres Bush has a very, very tough task ahead of him.

the whole world's in a pretty bad state at the minute. and the real problems are several decades down the line as more and more countries roll back the retirement age. old people, looking forward to retirement pensions, having to work in the local mall checkout to stay alive.

we should pray.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 06, 2004.

"Modern prophecy has to be fulfilled, Kevin."

What does this have to do with this thread or the question that I asked you to delete this thread since the President has already won re-election?

"I always wonder why Bush was shot in my dream from April 2003. And also why I was told he was one of 123 that will die within the next 3 years."

This is nothing but pure speculation on your part. You have already had one dream that did not come true, so who is to believe that any of your dreams are true???

"Many of us might diagree with the President, Kevin."

Many more of us agree with the President, that is why he was re-elected and Republicans made gains in the House of Representatives and the Senate...

"And the great majority who diasagree with him we do it through peaceful protests or the ballot box."

Your protest is now (as Zarove stated above) "moot"...

"But there are people who have lost brothers, husbands,...in Iraq. There are Iraqis who have lost property or relatives in Iraq or Afganistan."

What does this have to do with the discussion on this thread??? Did these people sign on the dotted line to protect and/or die for this country when they joined the armed forces???

"There are also Haitians....."

Again, this has nothing to do with the topic of this thread...

"One of them holds a grudge....this person will wait for the right time, somehow before May 2005 comes....."

Not sure where you were going here???...

"But before that happens, the clue will be the death of the Pope. He must die before Bush."

You said in another thread that the pope would die at the latest by September 2004 and this time has come and gone...???

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 06, 2004.

"the clue will be the death of the Pope. He must die before Bush"

Well, given that the Pope is 84 years old and in failing health, while Mr. Bush is 58 years old and in excellent health, that doesn't sound like much of a "clue".

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 06, 2004.

They die in pairs, Paul M.

Antonio aguilar (singer from Mexico) will die before Fidel Castro. The Pope before Bush.

Somehow the lives of these people are connected. I don't know the reasons why.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), November 06, 2004.

The problem Ian is that there is something called the euro now.

The mighty dollar was it for the whole 20th century. The Yen in the latter part until the real state buble burst in the 19990s.

The British pound in the 19th and 20th centuries.

The Peso was it for the 19th century with the Pound.

So if we continue to run deficits, the world will turn to the euro.

Then we might experience big periods of high inflation again.

The Christian Yahwist

PS: My wife was told in august 1999 in a dram that God had a lot of bad news (catastrophes) for the US if some things were not eliminated. Since then we had 9/11...

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), November 06, 2004.

elpidio, not to belittle you, but in 2000 at a military board that i had for interview, i predicted that terrorism was going to be the number one concern of america in the future (listing reasons, people, etc). it turns out my predictions were nearly 100% true, realized in 9/11. the difference in this case, however, is that just because i guessed something correctly, i dont consider myself a prophet... with all due respect, perhaps you should consider the same?

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 08, 2004.

There was a time I wasn't, Paul H.

By Age 24 my dreams and predictions began. By age 37 1/2 on July 23, 2000 God Yahweh and his Son Jesus appeared to me and gave me a mission.

Thus, my mission began at age 37 1/2.

Joan of Arc was called at age 15. Sister Lucia I think at age 10. One united the French, even though she was burned as a witch. The other warned about the coming destruction of the Church in 1917.

She is still alive. John Paul II admitted her prophecy to be true. He also admitted he was the Pope of her vision.

My mission will last 40 + years. Then I will be replaced.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), November 08, 2004.

Elpidio says:

"Right now I am afraid there is a bubble about to burst in the real estae market, especially in California. So many people refinanced in the last 2 years, that that extra money kept the econmy going."

You may be right, real estate prices in many areas of the country have been greatly inflated. Also, people's tendency to borrow money has increased their risk exposure greater than most realize. If we get a downturn, it could get ugly. Did you know that since 1970 the average house size has increased 40%, while the average family size has decreased. And people still need to rent those storage units! Our appetite for stuff is insatiable.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), November 09, 2004.

In my neck of the woods ALL of the new subdivisions being built have enormous homes. Nothing like the modest 3 bedroom I grew up in. It is AMAZING!

My nephew is a heating and cooling repairmen that fixes furnaces and air conditioners. He says that so many of these big beautiful houses are EMPTY of furniture because the people are so strapped financially in paying the mortgage they can't afford furniture!

It is going to crumble sometime (it has to) and "it ain't gonna be pretty"!

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), November 09, 2004.

Everybody needs to move to Texas. We have everything here. "Se habla everything, too". Well, my taxes go up every year. The traffic in the Valley is growing. Contruction and homes are constantly on the increase. Crime keeps increasing. Vice seems to be dominating the scene. I want out!!

The other day I almost chased down a mugger at our grocery store. I guess it wasn't in the cards for me to do that. I'm glad I didn't come to think of it. Although, I did once apprehended a thief who pushed my son into the glass door. The cops couldn't catch up to him. I did. Crime and violence is creeping up on us!

I've noticed that with progress comes vice. There are a bunch of topless bars and X-rated video houses around. They aren't ashamed of their businesses. They are as common as a MacDonalds joint and they will fight Christian protests against them at City Hall. They have their "rights".

I have noticed more murder in the Valley, too. Things aren't getting better folks.

.........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 09, 2004.

by Michael A. Hoffman II

It's just a few days after the election and all the low-IQ Bush voters who imagined they were casting their ballot for a "devout Christian" are having the usual "rude awakening." I say "usual" because just the fact that last April Bush embraced and supported Arlen Specter, who defends the legality of infanticide (partial- birth abortion), should have alerted and alarmed even the most dim- witted sleep-walker.

The fact that during the campaign Bush maintained Skull and Bones secret society discipline by refusing to divulge the secrets of Bones to Tim Russert on national TV, should have been enough for any one of normal intelligence to discern that the President is an occult masquerader and not a follower of Jesus Christ.

Those who cast votes for Bush, the "devout Christian," must live with the fact that this President has just appointed as the nation's new Attorney General, Alberto Gonzalez, a degenerate so low, he does not believe in having an underage child obtain her parents' permission before killing her precious unborn baby.

Just forty years ago any judge who would grant permission for a child to have an abortion in secret, with no opportunity for her own parents to intervene, would have been denounced as a Bolshevik and tarred and feathered. But after four decades of alchemical processing, we have a "conservative" turkey flock of Skull and Bones- type "Christians" who voted for Bush and made it possible for Gonzalez's sickening degeneracy to be rewarded with the post of highest legal officer of the land.

This is not an anomaly. When Alabama's degenerate Attorney General Bill Pryor dared to bring ethics charges against Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore, because Moore stood for the Ten Commandments, Bush rewarded Pryor by elevating him to a federal judgeship. This is all part of the "Masquerader's Jest" that has been transpiring since the Abbey of Thelema of Rabelais and Sir Francis Dashwood's Hellfire Club.

We spent the whole summer and fall warning Protestants and Catholics about the grave sin they would incur by voting for Bonesman Bush, but instead, most followed their god-like Talk-Radio host morons, and conservative priest and preacher imbeciles, fulfilling Ronald Reagan's sly observation about the American people, that among them, "image prevails over reality."

Or as Nietzsche said, "Against stupidity even the gods fight in vain."

Bush attorney general pick is Alberto Gonzales

CNN, November 10, 2004

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- ...In a news release

I knew it! that is why I cast my vote for Peroutka.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), November 12, 2004.