Bush In Bed With Homosexuals

ToogoodReports ^ | April 24, 2002 | Chuck Baldwin

[Starmaker]

By now, we have a clear record on the Bush administration in regard to homosexuality. The record reveals that President Bush is more than sympathetic to the homosexual agenda. One could even argue that Bush has become (or always was) a proud promoter of that agenda. Here is the record; you judge for yourself.

1. Candidate George W. Bush appointed four openly homosexual, gay-rights advocates to his presidential campaign steering committee. According to the homosexual group, Log Cabin Republicans, "scores" of Bush state steering committee members and campaign volunteers were homosexuals.
2. Perhaps this explains why hundreds of homosexuals gathered in Washington, D.C., last weekend to "celebrate the achievements and leadership of George W. Bush." It also helps to explain why Rich Tafel, executive director of Log Cabin Republicans, said, "We want the country to know that we are behind our president and administration."
3. On Dec. 21, 2001, President Bush signed a historic bill, which "for the first time allows the District of Columbia government to fund a program that will give domestic partners of city employees access to health benefits." Remember, Bush insisted that openly homosexual Congressman Jim Kolbe of Arizona be given a prominent speaking role at the Republican National Convention. It was Kolbe who introduced the amendment lifting the ban on gay partner benefits in D.C.
4. Bush named Scot Evertz, a prominent homosexual activist, to head the White House AIDS office even though he had absolutely no experience dealing with public health issues.
5. Bush appointed another homosexual activist, Donald Cappoccia, to the U.S. Commission on Fine Arts.
6. Bush appointed openly homosexual, Michael Guest, as Ambassador to Romania. Since then, Bush has decided to leave in place a Clinton policy that calls for supporting the "unmarried partners" of U.S. Foreign Service workers. This allows Guest's live-in lover to live in the U.S. Embassy in Bucharest and allows him to join Guest at official embassy functions.
7. Bush presided over the appointment of homosexual activist, Stephen Herbits, to oversee the choice of civilian personnel at the Pentagon.
8. Bush has not reversed a single pro-homosexual policy instituted by former president Bill Clinton. Not even one!
9. The Bush administration posted a job for what is called a "gay and lesbian program specialist" at the Department of Agriculture.
10. Bush appointed the ardently pro-homosexual Governor of Massachusetts, Paul Cellucci, as U.S. Ambassador to Canada.
11. Bush appointed Lewis Eisenberg to become the new GOP chief fundraiser. Eisenberg has a long history of supporting pro-homosexual and pro-abortion candidates.
12. Just yesterday, The Washington Times reported, "The Bush administration has joined European delegates to an upcoming U.N. summit on children in moving to recognize families 'in various forms,' including unmarried cohabiting couples and homosexual partners."

Concerned Women for America is so concerned that it recently released a statement saying, "President George Bush is just another Bill Clinton on the homosexual-rights issue." Perhaps Log Cabin spokesman, Rich Tafel, best summarized the situation. He said, "He [Bush] has a vision of a different Republican Party." If homosexual activists such as Tafel can see the real George W. Bush, why cannot Christian conservatives?

[Scholastic]

ping! Another wonderful column from the Chuck Wagon!

[Kevin Curry]

ALL of them are evil?

The voluntary behavior and chosen lifestlye of ALL of them that embrace the behavior and lifestyle is profoundly sick, disease-ridden, and grossly dysfunctional. The aim of their activists is to force society by all means available to believe or bow to the lie that same-sex relationships are are as clean, healthy, and beneficial as traditional male-female monogamous marriages. This is a vile agenda. Even an implied partial acceptance of this agenda by Bush will further damage the country and send it down the sewer.

You must be young. Most conservatives who cheer for so-called gay-rights are still struggling against the brainwashing they received in our leftist colleges and universities.

The gay rights agenda is a plank in the liberal and libertarian platforms. It has no place in the conservative platform. If we do not resist it, it will destroy the Republican Party. You don't believe it? Just watch.

[Dave S]

Bush is like his Dad, will learn that regardless of how much he gives in to the radical left, he still will get an absolute nothing in return.

Who says he is doing these "terrible" things to curry favor with the left? More likely he is doing these things because he doesnt care what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms as long as they do the job they were hired to complete. If there is any political thinking behind this, it is to soften image of Bush and Republicans among socker moms, moderates, and young people all of whom are much more tolerant than the loving Christians of the far right.

[A2J]

Can Chuck Baldwin give us an example of any proposals by this administration promoting homosexuality?

He shouldn't have to. Only the blindest of the blind can't (or refuse to) see that by appointing homosexuals to high cabinet positions, Bush IS promoting homosexuality.

While it may be fair to say that Bush opposes terrorism, an appointment of a known terrorist to his administration would greatly undermine his words, don't you think?

[FourtySeven]

DOES Bush need to fear a backlash from the RIGHT?

YES

[Quix]

. . . in bed with homosexuals . . .

In a manner of speaking, we all hope!

I wouldn't mind him being charitable toward them regarding jobs that didn't influence children, offend religions or religious organizations--as well as reasonable support on health care. I'm much against any support on his part for gay marriages, gay instruction agenda in schools etc.

[Dave S]

All gay activists believe the true and sole essence of a human being is his or her sexual drives--the more perverse, the better. Everything else is strictly secondary.

And how many years were you a gay activist? Well you must have been. You seem to know the heart of ALL gay activists. That knowledge must have come from somewhere. Or is it that you are just bearing false witness? Isnt there a COMMANDMENT against that?

I thought the Bible condemns adultery too. In fact isnt it one of the revered ten commandments? Are you going to prohibit all men or women who have had an affair or who had sex prior to marriage from serving in government? Whoops I guess that would have cost us Ronald Reagan.

[detsaoT]

The gay rights agenda is a plank in the liberal and libertarian platforms. It has no place in the conservative platform. If we do not resist it, it will destroy the Republican Party. You don't believe it? Just watch.

While I'm not sure that I agree (the Republican party has been totally destroyed for as long as I can remember, though I don't have much history to go by here), I am slowly coming to grips with the fact that there will most likely be a big showdown for control of the Republican party. The concept of "big-tentism" doesn't work well, when various factions inside of the "big tent" radically disagree with each other. The end result of all of this REPUBLICAN INFIGHTING is going to end up being the departure of one or more groups from the party towards an unspecified third group.

So, the question is, which group do you think will depart the Republican party first? Us "raaaaadical right-winger bigot (insert more LIBERAL catch-phrases to fit)" Christians to a party more in line with our beliefs? Or will the more libertarian-leaning "moderates" (Liberal Republicans) go to a party which suits them? (Personally, I'm sick and tired of the Republican party abandoning my beliefs in favor of those more in line with those of Liberal New York, and am leaning more in favor of abandoning the "stupid" party..)

Either way this INEVITABLE show-down ends up, the balance of American governance will certainly be shifted. And it will be truly remarkable to behold. Perhaps even "scary," if the sudden fracture of the Republican party causes the Dumbocrats to have a temporary majority in American politics.

In any event, I think it will be much more interesting to watch in person, than if I were to read about the same sort of event in a history book long from now...

:) ttt

[RAT Patrol]

We are talking about 2 completely different things.

Jesus came into the World that the World (gays, straight, liars, whoever) might be saved through His sacrifice. He did not come to rubber stamp sin; He cam to conquer it. He is the Judge, not me. He hung out with sinners and told them to turn from their wicked ways and follow Him. They did. What He did NOT do is advocate legitimizing adultery, prostitution, or any other sin. He could have done that without the pain of the Cross.

There is more than a very fine line between simply not shunning (being kind) and endorsing. I wonder if Bush has crossed that line.

Because we are free from the law does not mean we should not keep it. Salvation is the fulfilment of the law. DEBT PAID IN FULL! It certainly is not the nulification of the law.

And, yeah, I love all the Bible verses you quoted. We are just talking about two entirely different things. Besides, I am in no way saying the government must endorse the Bible. I am saying that the government should not condemn the Bible. Tiny differences can be worlds apart.

[A2J]

I'm much against any support on his part for gay marriages, gay instruction agenda in schools etc.

And the appointment of openly homosexuals to high profile positions in his administration is the means to that end.

[Cap'n Crunch]

Skull and Bones, Freemasonry, no difference in my book, they all work for the same things.

Read Pope Leo XIII encyclical on Freemasonry, or several other books, Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher is a good one.

Our country, and the world, are being cleverly undermined by the black beast, secret societies, including Freemasonry.

[Dave S]

Only the blindest of the blind can't (or refuse to) see that by appointing homosexuals to high cabinet positions, Bush IS promoting homosexuality.

Okay "blind one", name one high cabinet position held by a gay person? You said it, not me. You do know what a cabinet position is dont you? Defend yourself.

[Cap'n Crunch]

Funny how our leader's speak big things about communists but we keep moving in that direction.

[truenospinzone]

You must be young.

You must be a statist JBT that can't or won't separate a private act from the public face that it's most rabid activists provide.

Trust me, I have a problem with the whitewashed version of the homosexual lifestyle that is taught in public schools. However, I would also have a problem with schools teaching that homosexuality is an inherent evil that must be destroyed. I have a problem with hate crime legislation. I would also have a problem with homosexuality being used as a justification for murder (i.e. "Well, your honor, it was self-defense - he hit on me"). I have a problem with the most vocal, rabid "We will not be happy until you fully accept our lifestyle" sect of the homosexual community. I also have a problem with the most vocal, rabid, "we will not be happy until everyone lives by our narrowly-defined values" sect of the Christian community. You don't seem to mind any of the latter scenarios.

[Dave S]

There is more than a very fine line between simply not shunning (being kind) and endorsing. I wonder if Bush has crossed that line.

Do you really think Bush spends his time as President attempting to find gays to nominate for positions in government. He has over 5000 positions to fill. I doubt that he has a clue whether or not the person is gay or not. I doubt he cares as long as the individual isnt going to do something to embarrass the President or Country like having sex in the office place (oops forgot that was Clinton :-))

[A2J]

Are you going to prohibit all men or women who have had an affair or who had sex prior to marriage from serving in government?

Serving in a classified government job and serving in a high-profile APPOINTED position are two very different things.

In the former, one cannot be discriminated against. In the latter, one can.

In the former, one has little chance to influence policy. In the latter, one wields great influence upon policy.

In the former, it is one voice among thousands and, therefore, basically silent. In the latter, it is one (or four in this case) among a few, resulting in a very visible and effective soapbox upon which one can speak much, much louder.

Big, big difference indeed.

[Quix]

You could be quite right. I hope not, though.

[detsaoT]

(Hint: People who declare sodomy/homosexuality to be a "sin" don't necessarily insist on federalizing the crime. People who disagree with you (or presume things about you - I'm not condoning the actions of anyone here) aren't necessarily JBT big-gubmint statists. :) ) Your attempts to view this matter in a balanced way are commendable, even if I don't agree with your conclusions.

However, I would also have a problem with schools teaching that homosexuality is an inherent evil that must be destroyed.

I think this sentence clearly illustrates exactly why the hell we need to keep Government OUT of the education business. Here's why:

* Public schools generally cost twice as much as their equivalent Private schoolks. Payment for these school systems is enforced by compulsory taxes on everyone, even those who do not use the public school system (Both those without children, and those who send their children to private schools/homeschool).

* Government will always fund programs by taking money from everyone. There are groups within the Government who will always seek to advance their personal agenda, at the cost of people who disagree with them (both Christians and secular humanists are guilty of doing this). This practice is morally reprehensible, and can ONLY be stopped by NOT TAKING MONEY AWAY FROM GROUP A TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO GROUP B.

* The education which our children receive in the Public school system is far (as if I need to _prove_ this to anyone here) below the standards which are met AND EXCEEDED by private educational institutions, RELIGIOUS OR NOT! (Recall - Not all private schools are Christian schools, even though Christian groups are the predominant force in private education today - There is nothing stopping secularists from setting up their own private schools, for the like-minded)

Therefore, abolish the public education system (this is funded on a state-by-state level, so the only way to eliminate the system is to have your State Legislature do so), and choose a school for your child which is in line with your beliefs. I will do the same, and neither of us will be upset at the stomping on of our beliefs by the other in a publically-funded institution.

:) ttt

[gilor]

Get behind me Satan! Get behind Me!

[thegreatbeast]

The fact is that W shouldn't have to learn any lessons from H's presidency at this late date. There is a lot that makes me uncomfortable about this quote conservative unquote president. He panders to various groups at the expense of conservative principles. He was elected to lead the fight against the decaying influence of the demorats. Has anyone heard the clarion call to arms?