I came across a great article on why Christians SHOULD NOT vote for George Bush. It is quite long, but thorough and well documented. It lays out a very good case for why Bush, despite what he says, is Pro-Abortion, Pro-Homosexuality, and Pro-Islam, among other things. None of these things are remotely Pro-Christian.
- He demoralized Korean and Japanese Christians by bowing down at a pagan Shinto shrine in Japan.
- His public profession that Muslims and Christians worship the same God, contrary to the plain teaching of Scripture.
- His endorsement of Ramadan, a Muslim fast, at a White House celebration.
- 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.]
- 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.
- Although he prevented Federal funding of experimentation on new aborted embryos, he allowed federally-financed experimentation on human embryos that have already been murdered. He has not legislated against privately-funded exploitation of the carcasses of abortion victims at all.
- His support of Clinton’s National Monuments Declaration, in which millions of acres of western land was seized by the executive branch.
- His dramatic increase in the size and spending of the federal government with a record deficit. With his $2.23 trillion budget – not including
nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan – his administration will complete the biggest increase in government spending since the Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society.” The budget deficit predicted by the House Budget Office will hit a record $475 billion in 2004! 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.”- His expansion of government welfare programs to illegal aliens and his proposals to grant amnesty to illegal aliens. 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.”
- His endorsement and promotion of the globalist, sovereignty-threatening aims of the United Nations. 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.”
- 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.
- 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. 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.
- There are many major problems with George Bush’s pre-emptive invasion of Iraq, in which he pre-emptively invaded a nation who violated U.N. resolutions, and he did so without the approval of the U.N. and without the Constitutionally-required Declaration of War. For an article I wrote on that subject, see
http://www.wherethetruthhurts.org/tractsbooksread.php?w=14 .
Typical conservative rebuttal: This is a common reproof conservatives offer when they discover that I have denounce Bush and I support the Constitution Party candidate for President, Michael Peroutka, the only pro-life, pro-family constitutional Presidential candidate on the ballot in 2004.
“A vote for Michael Peroutka is a vote for John Kerry.”
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-sodomite 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.
He pays lip service to Christians, and I’ve heard even has Bible studies in the Oval Office, but the man is not a Christian.
Hat Tip: Elmo of “Objects in Mirror”
Ok, I know that in saying this, I am likely to draw some fire, but I’m gonna do it anyway.
You say that it’s short sighted to vote for the lesser of two evils. I say it’s short sighted to believe that the decisions made next month will only last for four years. The fact is that presidential policies and decisions remain part of American daily life long after the term is up.
You say we should vote with our grandchildren in mind. Well, I can say with some surety that my grandchildren will likely never even hear the name Peroutka, but they will bear the effects of either John Kerry’s policies or George Bush’s. You can probably guess who I’m voting for.
Fire, no. I’ll give you reasons why I think that is short-sighted, but hopefully no fire.
You are right that it is short-sighted to think that the decisions made next month will affect only the next four years. That is exactly why I will not vote for Bush. The more I learn of the man, the more I see that he is not only not a Christian, he is inherently anti-Christian. It is bad enough the guy continues anti-Christian policies, and even strengthens them, but to do so in the name of Christ is utterly blasphemous.
I did not write any of the text in the grey boxes. Those are excerpts from the article mentioned. I do agree with the entire article however. As the left moves further to the left, the right follows only a few steps behind. I say I’ve had enough. I will not support a liberal, regardless of his party affiliation. I’ve drawn a line in the sand and decided that in order to earn MY vote, a candidate must abide by certain principles, both in words and in deeds.
I cast my vote knowing full well that one day I will stand before God and give accounting of my decision. When He asks, “This man killed my children, supported wickedness, and blasphemed my name. Why did you support him in his bid for power?” I can say that I did not.
I did not vote for Bush in 2000, but I knew who he was based on his record as Governor of Texas, which the entire nation had access to (I live in Minnesota). Had Howard Philips, the 2000 Constitution Party candidate that I did vote for, become President, and carried on un-Christian policies, I would not be considering him for re-election, as I am not considering Bush now.
I also honestly see little difference between Bush and Kerry. Both are from different factions of the single ruling party we have now. That’s really all it is. The Status Quo changes little whether we have a Democrat in the White House or a Republican. In many ways, Bill Clinton was more conservative than Bush is.
I want change, and I’m going to vote for change.
As I mentioned, I live in Minnesota. We had an independent in the Governor’s office for four years that no one expected to even have a serious showing in the polls. Jesse Ventura came out of nowhere. He wasn’t invited to the debates, and didn’t get the press coverage that the other two candidates had. Enough people decided to give the guy a shot though, and against all odds, he won the election. I see no reason why that can’t happen at a national level. If enough people realize that the Republocrat charade is just that, a charade, we can get a good man in the White House.
As the Republicans replaced the Whigs, it is my hope that the Constitutionalists replace the Republicans as the major conservative party in America. That can only happen if people give up this myopic belief that they have to support a bad guy because his biggest opponent is worse.
I hope that didn’t come across as fire. I appreciate comments here, and hope even those who disagree with me will feel welcome to leave them.
Actually, the “drawing fire” thing wasn’t directed toward you — I know (from reading what you write) that you’re not that type. But I also personnaly know that I will likely be discussing this post with at least one other member of the blogosphere who agrees with you on this point and regularly reads your site. 😉
That said…
I understand your point. I also did not vote for Bush last time, though if I had known how close it was going to be, I probably would have. I don’t really think that Mr. Ventura is a valid comparison, since he had quite a bit of celebrity before he ever ran for office. I have never lived in Minn, and I couldn’t name any other person who has ever run for office there, but I knew about it when he was running. I think that alone is testament to the amount of press you say he didn’t get.
The only information I really have on Peroutka is what his campaign tells me. I don’t know how he’d really act as president because I don’t have a political record to look at. I have no way of knowing whether he is really going to do all of those things he says he will (and I think a number of them are optimistic at best) or even whether he actually believes them.
On the other hand, I don’t purport to know the current (and eternal) status for Mr. Bush’s soul. I believe, however, that he is closer to my views on the majority of the issues facing our nation than Kerry is. I have seen his leadership, and though he has many flaws, I know what to expect from him, and I think he is on my side more often than not.
I also know that the man who will be president for the next term is either Kerry or Bush, and the thought of Kerry in the white house scares me to no end.
I should probably say that, ultimately, I don’t know the state of Bush’s eternal soul either. However, when you really look at his record, I feel safe in assuming that he’s not really saved. What’s worse for him is that we Christians know that he does know the gospel. I always hope that when I suspect someone is unsaved, that I will find out I’m wrong when I get to eternity myself.
The only hope I have for Bush is that he is being forced by unseen forces to push the policies he pushes, against his will. I believe that JFK was assassinated because he didn’t want to go along with those same powers. He tried to end the Federal Reserve and dissolve the CIA (documented fact). If Bush is genuinely a Christian, he can’t express it.
I have to assume that the President actually has the power to carry out the duties that come with the office though. Arguing on the side of Conspiracy Theory doesn’t necessarily help my argument. That being said, he will say one thing publicly, but do the opposite in practice. The article I cited at the beginning of my post does a great job of documenting that.
I tend to think that when you do things like push for conservative judges, but support liberal Senators (such as Arlen Spector) who will block those judges, you are the definition of a back-stabber.
I’d rather stay home on November 2nd than vote for the guy who I know will plunge a knife in my back, and don’t believe that withholding my vote will help the guy who intends to stab me in the front.
Kerry scares me too, but after prayerfully considering my vote, I’d rather support a guy who says he’s a Christian and has no record to back it up than a guy who says he’s a Christian but has a record to suggest otherwise.
Oh, and I’m not sure about this, but I suspect my readers are about evenly split between Bush supporters and Peroutka or Badnarick supporters. Judging by the blogs I’ve discovered that link to me, I’d even guess there are more Bush supporters.
Andy,
As the one who I assume Bun-girl is going to be discussing this string with, I have one thing to say. You just had to bring this up didn’t you?! 🙂
I agree with you that Bush’s actions, or more correct, his non-actions have given the lie to his being a conservative. I cannot and will not support his re-election, although I would not shed a tear if he were re-elected, if for no other reason than because Kerry would be far far worse. However, for harmony at home, what I likely will do is skip the presidential section of the ballot altogether. And Bush is going to carry Texas handily anyway.
Long term though, I see many signs that the Democratic Party is tearing itself apart, and the GOP is moving left. That process possibly will accelerate if Bush does win. As the GOP becomes the center-left party, with the right messenger, a strong third party could emerge to fill the resultant vacuum left by the GOP. But unfortunately it appears that neither Badnarik or Peroutka are the right messenger. Maybe JC Watts or someone who has a similar profile, and name recognition could do it.
Moose,
I apologize for any discord that I bring to your home. I share your pain, as my fiancee is a Bush supporter, and no amount of debating will change her mind.
I’m wondering how our conversation will go when she gets around to reading this.
I agree with your assessment of the two parties. I hope that is how it goes, as it would give us a truly conservative voice that would actually get heard. I also think that if the Constitution and Libertarian Parties would bury the hatchet and agree to disagree on the few issues they do disagree on, they could merge and become a major force on the political scene.
I wish your family the best, and hope that you can maintain a peaceful disagreement on this. In my case, I take comfort in the fact that we are at least both conservative. We just disagree on how to further the conservative agenda.
I don’t know that I agree with your assessment of JFK, but I don’t disagree either. I haven’t studied the subject in any depth, so I honestly don’t know.
I do believe that the president (any president) is under a tremendous amount of pressure and that any man — Christian or not — may cave in to that pressure from time to time. Using myself as an example, I know I am certainly a Christian. I also know that from time to time (daily it seems) I say and do things that people could point at and say “look — she’s not a Christian, she’s even anti-Christian!” I screw up, I do say things that are hurtful, I sin, I do things that are not as Christ would. I am human, and though I try not to be, I am still suceptable to temptation. I am not even under 1/100th the amount of pressure and stress those at higher offices are. I say that I don’t know for certain whether George W is a Christian in truth or in name only because I cannot hold him to higher standards than I hold myself in this respect.
What I do believe about Bush is that he is trying to do the right thing. I know the view from the oval office, where he is surrounded daily by people whose sole purpose in life is to influence him and the way he does his job, can’t be exactly clear. I also know that a still small voice is easy to miss among the chaos.
AO,
Please don’t feel like you cause discord at all. All is good with Bun-girl and I .
Unsolicited advice from a married guy – if you haven’t been doing so already, let the Bush support thing slide with your fiancee. Or with any topic where her opinion is different than yours. Just focus on serving her, and loving her, and all will be good in your upcoming marriage. And God’s grace to the both of you.
Jesus spoke of Wheat and Tares, Sheep and Goats, True converts and False. He said we should know the difference by their fruits, which is what I’m going on.
Now I don’t always bear good fruit, as I know no Christian does, but when the guy, time after time, does things that upset Christians, and then justifies himself, I see it as bearing bad fruit a little too consistently.
By his WORDS, I see that Bush is trying to do the right thing, but by his DEEDS, I KNOW he is doing the wrong thing.
I don’t think I could do better under the pressure that the “leader of the free world” is under, but that’s no excuse for bearing bad fruit. There were countless kings in the Old Testament that were spoken of as evil men because they did not stand up for what was right. God expects that if you’re going to be the leader of a country, you need to lead by His example.
He could end abortion tomorrow if he wanted to.
He could end the gay marriage debate tomorrow if he wanted to.
He could call a spade a spade in regards to the violent nature of Islam tomorrow if he wanted to. On top of that, he could admit that Allah is NOT Yahweh (not that the President can decide who God is).
He could end numerous unconstitutional big-government programs tomorrow if he wanted to.
I cold go on and on!
Thanks Moose.
Yeah, we don’t discuss it much, and it never (as far as I can remember) gets heated!