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?

[truenospinzone]

aren't necessarily JBT big-gubmint statists.

Oh, I know, and I would never make that assumption towards any other poster. However, I've seen enough of Kevin "Pot Smokers should be gunned down in their own homes" Curry in the WoD threads to know how I feel about his brand of politics in general.

[detsaoT]

10-4.

:) ttt

[Kevin Curry]

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?

Thank you for bring adultery up, because it illustrates my point PERFECTLY. To use your analogy, this isn't about adulterers serving government. It is about adulterers seeking to force social acceptance of their adultery by winning appointments to positions in the Bush administration while shouting to the world "I am an adulterer, proud of it, and you're a bigot if you don't agree! Bush obviously agrees with me, why don't you get with the program?"

Allow me to make the point by putting the question back to you. Let's see if you have enough spine and intelligence to answer it without being mealy-mouthed.

Suppose a group of philandering males get together, decide their libidos are too much for them to control, and that they are tired of being persecuted by religious bigots, angry husbands, and other narrow-minded unprogressive people who just don't understand this natural and overwhelming NEED they have to seduce and have sex with every female that can't move out of the way quickly enough.

Suppose they rail against the adultery laws and demand hate-crime protection from aggrieved husbands who just "don't get it." Suppose they form a group called "Adulterers Without Shame," elect Bill Clinton its president, and petition for jobs in the Bush administration. Should Bush meet with these men on that basis and appoint them to positions in his administration? Do you not see a problem with that?

Now suppose the UN proposes a declaration to the effect that marriage is obsolete and anti-human, and that all sexual encounters between human beings, whatever gender, however fleeting, and for whatever reason, must be honored and respected in the laws of all nations. Suppose Bill Clinton is doing handsprings in joy over this and that the Bush administration signals that it will sign on to the declaration in the interest of showing tolerence to all persecuted peeople, including serial adulterers.

Do you not see a problem with this? I do. And it is precisely the same problem with acknowledging male-male "families" as the administration is apparently about to do.

Adultery, bestiality, necrophilia, the gay lifestyle--they are all abominable and destructive behaviors. Those who struggle with these behaviors should struggle in secret. I pray for their success. But the administration should not be allied in any efforts to force society to redefine and accept such profoundly sick and destructive behaviors as normal and healthy.

[general_re]

...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.

While I am not unsympathetic to the case you want to make, I must point out that, unless you plan to take this to its full-blown libertarian conclusion, this is a very weak argument. Virtually everything government does is funded in such a fashion. Public roads are paid for by people who don't drive, nuclear weapons are paid for by people who despise them, and so forth.

The rationale is simple - public roads benefit society-at-large (even those who don't drive) by facilitating commerce. Similarly, public education (ostensibly) benefits society-at-large (even those with no children) by providing for an educated, civilized population. We may certainly question whether it actually achieves those goals, but simply implying that it's bad for people to fund things they don't tangibly and immediately benefit from is not really a full picture.

If, on the other hand, you do wish to make that case - that people shouldn't pay for things from which they do not tangibly and immediately benefit - you certainly can, so long as you realize that the practical effect is that virtually nothing will be publicly funded.

[Rytwyng]

If Jesus were here today he would hang out with gays and other misfits as he did when he hung with whores and tax collectors.

No doubt He would. But, He would tell the "gays" to go and sin no more, just as He did with prostitutes and dishonest tax collection agents. Certainly He befriended these people -- rather more enthusiastically than the religious hypocrites, which He couldn't stand -- but He never compromised His demand that they give up their sin.

Tolerance, or even Divine love, for a person, does not logically imply approval of his actions. Why is it so difficult for homosexuals and their defenders to understand this simple concept?

[Kevin Curry]

I love it when the pro-dopers and pro-sodomy crowd vilify me and falsely accuse me. It proves I am speaking the truth.

Bring it on. Lay it thick and heavy. You and your ilk are allied in the destruction of this nation. You prove it more fully with every post.

[detsaoT]

While I am not unsympathetic to the case you want to make, I must point out that, unless you plan to take this to its full-blown libertarian conclusion, this is a very weak argument. Virtually everything government does is funded in such a fashion. Public roads are paid for by people who don't drive, nuclear weapons are paid for by people who despise them, and so forth.

Except in cases of National Defense, National Security, Inter-state Relations, and International Relations, I am adamantly against ANY Federal funding of ANYTHING. I will not take the traditional Libertarian approach of banning all STATE funding of EVERYTHING, but I do prefer to see the State try to make compulsory payments, as the citizens of that State have greater control over their Legislature than they have over the District.

And, like I said, schools are created and funded per-state. It really would take a concerted, intra-State effort to abolish the compulsory Public-education system... not that any such proposition has much of a chance of succeeding, thanks to a century of LIBERAL indoctrination of our good citizens.

The rationale is simple - public roads benefit society-at-large (even those who don't drive) by facilitating commerce. Similarly, public education (ostensibly) benefits society-at-large (even those with no children) by providing for an educated, civilized population. We may certainly question whether it actually achieves those goals, but simply implying that it's bad for people to fund things they don't tangibly and immediately benefit from is not really a full picture. If, on the other hand, you do wish to make that case - that people shouldn't pay for things from which they do not tangibly and immediately benefit - you certainly can, so long as you realize that the practical effect is that virtually nothing will be publicly funded.

Like I said, I am generally Libertarian (not "civil-libertarian," just "libertarian") on the Federal level. State expenditures don't bug me to the extent that Federal expenditures and MANDATES do.

:) ttt

[Dave S]

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.

Name one gay person that Bush has named to "high level" position within his administration. Cabinet officers dont even have much power in Washington, why are you so freaked out by people five or six layers down in the organization?

[truenospinzone]

Thanks for the eloquent, reasonable, informed response. Would you care to actually read my original response to you and point out specifically what portion of my stance facilitates the detruction of America?

And by the way, in the future, you may not want to label someone "pro-drug and pro-sodomy" without merit and then complain about being "falsely vilified" in the same sentence.

[OWK]

Bring it on. Lay it thick and heavy.

Sheesh... What a weenie.

[general_re]

That's a bit more nuanced than your previous post, and I think that's a reasonable stance to take. In terms of arguing against federal funding of education, I think you'll have more to attack if you concentrate on the endless stream of unfunded mandates coming from Washington, as that's really how the feds exert control of education, rather than directly funding it - of all the money spent on public education, the federal government really only accounts for about 3% of it.

In terms of the state level, remember that the ultimate goal is to have an educated populace to benefit all of society, but there is no particular means by which that must be achieved. That is, there may be other ways of getting us to that goal besides simple mandatory public schooling. One obvious example of alternate means to that end would be vouchers for parents of school-age children. In that way, education can be publicly funded, without needing the infrastructure of state schools.

And as for the rest, the Constitution does provide for some areas where the federal government can be permitted to act and fund programs, as you alluded to, such as national defense. By virtue of the Commerce Clause, federal funding of the interstate highway system seems to me to be a reasonably supportable position - it does indeed promote commerce ;)

Good posts - thanks for sharing.

[Dave S]

Tolerance, or even Divine love, for a person, does not logically imply approval of his actions. Why is it so difficult for homosexuals and their defenders to understand this simple concept?

Again, let him who is without sin cast the first stone. Hate the sin, love the sinner.

[truenospinzone]

I know. Sounds pretty gay, huh? ;)

[detsaoT]

I would agree with your statements 100%. Thanks for helping me clarify my positions with respect to Federal expenditures vs. State expenditures!

:D ttt

[detsaoT]

Tolerance, or even Divine love, for a person, does not logically imply approval of his actions. Why is it so difficult for homosexuals and their defenders to understand this simple concept?

Again, let him who is without sin cast the first stone. Hate the sin, love the sinner

Rytwyng's statements could not be construed to mean "hate the sinner;" I don't see that message anywhere. There is a RADICAL difference between DISAGREEING WITH YOUR STATEMENTS and HATING YOU, which you apparently have a hard time distinguishing. Therefore, I challenge you to name ONE SINGLE TIME in which Christ condoned and approved of a sin. Any sin.

Go ahead, do it. You seem ADAMANT in claiming that Christ was completely approving of any sin, RATHER than the correct stance that Christ was loving the sinner, while condemning the sin. I'll be waiting for your reply, since you are apparently an expert biblical scholar (forgive my sarcasm).

:) ttt

[Dave S]

Tolerance, or even Divine love, for a person, does not logically imply approval of his actions. Why is it so difficult for homosexuals and their defenders to understand this simple concept?

Why is it so hard for fundmentalists to understand that tolerance for a person does not imply approval of his behavior. I may find it repugnant that some holly rollers beat their children or expose them to rattle snakes in religious ceremonies. That doesnt mean that I want to ban all Christians from government positions, if they are on my side on the issues that matter to me.

[Kevin Curry]

And OWK waddles in to quack his support of the pro-sodomy agenda.

The founders would be spinning in their graves to see how such ersatz conservatives have corrupted and co-opted the genius of the Constitution and made it vehicle of licentousness for promoting vile and destructive behaviors.

As John Adams put it, "Our Consitituion was made for a moral and religous people . . ."

[detsaoT]

Why is it so hard for fundmentalists to understand that tolerance for a person does not imply approval of his behavior. I may find it repugnant that some holly rollers beat their children or expose them to rattle snakes in religious ceremonies. That doesnt mean that I want to ban all Christians from government positions, if they are on my side on the issues that matter to me.

Ok, that clarifies your stance a little more. I will slightly retract my previous comments to you.

I am curious, however, in your implication that, by preaching to sinners, Christ was "tolerating" (and, by further implication, "condoning/approving") their sin. After all, Christ always instructed the sinners to "go and sin no more," did He not?

(Our main reason for linking "tolerance" with "approval/condoning of", by the way, is greatly influenced by the general Liberal attitude towards the same - the concept that, in order for me to "tolerate" someone, I must unwaveringly "approve" of their behavior, and if I do not, I am a "bigot." After having this attitude trumpeted and paraded in my face for years, this is where this particular "fundamentalist" attitude comes from, at least, as far as I am concerned.)

:) ttt

[Dave S]

There is a RADICAL difference between DISAGREEING WITH YOUR STATEMENTS and HATING YOU, which you apparently have a hard time distinguishing. Therefore, I challenge you to name ONE SINGLE TIME in which Christ condoned and approved of a sin. Any sin.

I will defer to your biblical scholarship as I havent read anything but the New Testament in ten years.

Okay I will throw back the challenge, name one person other than Christ who was without sin? Does the lack of names mean that it was sinful for Moses or Paul or James to select men who had sinned and continued to sin to help advance their agendas? So what is the problem with Bush hiring these guys to move his agenda forward, as long as they dont do anything to embarrass him or the country.

[jimt]

The gay rights agenda is a plank in the liberal and libertarian platforms.

Kevin, please stop repeating the same tired old lies. The "gay rights agenda" is not part of the LP platform. Here is what it actually says about gays.

"(We support) the repeal of all laws regarding consensual sexual relations, including prostitution and solicitation, and the cessation of state oppression and harassment of homosexual men and women, that they, at last, be accorded their full rights as individuals;"

Repeal of laws is not enactment of laws, as the gay rights folks want. And selective enforcement is never morally right.

"Individual rights should not be denied, abridged, or enhanced (emphasis mine) at the expense of other people's rights by laws at any level of government based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference, or sexual orientation.

We support repealing any such laws rather than extending them to all individuals.

Discrimination imposed by government has caused a multitude of problems. Anti-discrimination laws create the same problems. While we do not advocate private discrimination, we do not support any laws which attempt to limit or ban it.

The right to trade includes the right not to trade -- for any reasons whatsoever; the right of association includes the right not to associate, for exercise of this right depends upon mutual consent."

Is the above the "gay rights agenda", hmmmm ? Nope.

"We believe that adults have the right to private choice in consensual sexual activity.

We oppose any government attempt to dictate, prohibit, control, or encourage any private lifestyle, living arrangement or contractual relationship.

We support repeal of existing laws and policies which are intended to condemn, affirm, encourage, or deny sexual lifestyles or any set of attitudes about such lifestyles."

In other words, get out of the business of consenting adults. Including subsidizing care for their willingly contracted diseases.

Please try to tell the truth next time, because now I'm absolutely sure you've seen it.