Lotta that going around, huh?
Posted on 08/25/2002 12:50:21 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
Recently, I did an interview with Focus on the Family in which I stated that pro-family conservatives are not motivated to vote in the upcoming elections in November 2002. While I stand by that statement - because it is true - I was contacted by a high level White House staffer who pointed out all the reasons he believes that pro-family conservatives should be motivated to get out there and support President Bush. Taken together, it is a pretty impressive list. I will mention some of the items on his list, but by no means all of them, for purposes of discussion.
First there is the passage of the tax cut and the effort to make it permanent. Then, there is the nomination of excellent judges and the defense of those nominees who are encountering opposition for partisan purposes. President Bush rejected the International Criminal Court. He got us out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and thus paved the way for a missile defense system. The Ashcroft Justice Department, directed by the President, opposed partial birth abortion in the Ohio case and opposed euthanasia in the Oregon case.
The President opposed human cloning and has pushed for the right legislation in the Congress to ban it. The President opposed taxpayer-funded embryonic stem cell research. The Justice Department has supported the correct view of the Second Amendment.
The President has pushed for energy independence. He signed the parsonage tax credit bill and the Born Alive Infant Protection bill, during which, at the signing ceremony, the President made the strongest pro-life statement coming out of the Oval Office in a couple of decades.
The President signed the Child Custody Protection Act. In the Prenatal Health Insurance Bill, he insisted that the definition of eligibility include the fetus. In the House he pushed for a welfare reform bill where marriage, work and the family are central.
The President rejected the United Nations Rights of the Child Treaty. He rejected funding for the United Nations Population Fund. He raised abstinence education funding to a record $300 million.
In addition, the President has praised single sex schools, highlighted the Boy Scouts, and condemned the Ninth Circuit Court's ruling removing "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance.
My White House friend says that the whole demeanor and atmosphere in his place of work has changed. He is right about that. No more pot smoking, condom swinging, late night liaisons with teeny-boppers at the White House. It is a dignified place to work once again.
Now, in fairness, all of this has to be weighed against the sight of the president and Teddy Kennedy working together to pass the budget-busting education bill that threw out vouchers on day one. And there are liberal holdovers at the Justice Department and others departments pursuing policies that should be rejected by a conservative administration. Moreover, the administration seems to have a weakness toward homosexuals. Not only have there been a number of high level appointments, but the Justice Department, under the leadership of one of the heroes of the religious right, had a so called Gay Pride event. The President signed into law the so-called campaign reform law which has hurt the ability of every pro-family organization to explain to the voters the records of the Members of Congress or the positions of the challenger candidates. Then there is the huge agriculture subsidy bill that undoes most of the excellent "Freedom to Farm" reform effort of 1996, with most of the money going to big farm conglomerates, doing little for the family farm.
And now the Department of Health and Human Services has ruled that the government can share medical records with employers and insurance companies without your consent. And HHS is pushing a plan to deal with 9/11 type medical emergencies that all but does away with any remaining states' rights.
Again, I could go on. You will have to determine which list means the most to you.
But of the many good things the president has done, almost no one knows about them. I was speaking with some Midwest grass roots activists, who pride themselves on knowing what is going on. I read them the list from the White House staff member. They were shocked. They had heard of only about a quarter of the items mentioned. If folks like this haven't heard the good news, it is a lead pipe cinch that folks in the precincts know less.
If the Bush Administration expects to motivate voters for this fall, it had better learn to tell its story, short and sweet. One way that might be done would be for the president to cut a series of radio spots to be played in states where the stakes are high.
But what the heck, my advice on such things is never followed anyway.
I am always amazed at people such as yourself, optimists, that even when confronted with the facts, deny them, just refuse to accept what a man says at face value and maintain with sincere hearts that he really doesn't mean it. As far as loving his country, Hitler loved Germany, that's no indication that harm cannot be done to a country, deliberate or not, loved or not.
Here is what Bush said, and I quote:
"By nominating me for President, my Party has willingly embraced the New America."
"But the ultimate goal will remain constant ... free trade from northernmost Canada to the tip of Cape Horn."
I don't want to insult you, but you would never make a good horse trader because you seem unwilling to ask some pretty important questions, like, what is wrong with the "Old America" that we should want to replace it with the "New America"? Define the "New America" in plain and simple terms, for one thing we know it means NAFTA and open borders from "northmost Canada to Cape Horn" that means no sovereign borders. Guess where everyone is going to head? Not Chili I can assure you, guess again.
You can support this if you wish, so far it's a free country and you can still do that, personally I don't intend to end up with a three legged horse.
An indication to me that a person is a Christian is that if they make an oath, especially with their hand on the good book, they keep it. An indication to me that a man loves his country is that he protects, obeys, and upholds it's laws and constitution. An indication to me that a man is compassionate, is that he is compassionate first to his own people and his own nation. An indication to me that a man is charitable, is that his charity begins at home, a home with boundries and borders.
Bush has been President of the entire Western Hemisphere at the expense of American citizens. We have suffered the worst attack in our history because of our visa policies. He had a chance to be great, to go down in history as the greatest President all the way back to George Washington. Instead he has chosen globalism, the path to destruction of all I hold dear, I'm not voting for that.
Then the statement you are aluding to is like every other one from him that I've read.
I am certainly not saying that you are not pro-life, just that I believe you are wrong in your belief that Bush's compromise was in any way morally acceptable. I do not believe in Utilitarian philosophy, nor to I believe that situation ethics is a morally acceptable justification for any sort of federal funding of stem cell research, which would also include President Bush's embryonic stem-cell compromise.
There was absolutely no need for President Bush to make any sort of compromise in regards to embryonic stem-cell research. Why? Because we can already obtain stem cells from our own blood and fat, not to mention umbilical cords. With that being said, there has been no proof showing that embryonic stem cells are better than those taken from the other alternative sources mentioned above. President Bush did not need to make a compromise because we can already obtain stem cells without the taking of an innocent human life.
The human embryos that are destroyed in this process are not, as George W. Bush would say, “potential life,” these are human beings and should be given the same rights as any other and treated as such. Because these embryos are human life, any process that would destroy them is morally unacceptable. One could make the line of reasoning that constructing an argument based solely on human emotions is a bad course of action and using situation ethics an even worse one, which is exactly what the arguments made by the proponents of this research and compromise dwindle down to. Trying to save hundreds, even thousands of human lives by sacrificing the lives of the unborn who have not the ability to defend themselves is inhumane and detrimental to the moral compass of America, which is already in a state of perpetual disrepair. We cannot as a society, equate human beings to the status of a lab rat.
Because of all the reasons listed above, the U.S. Government should not fund this type of research or even attempt to validate it by funding research on embryos that have already been killed; the ends just do not justify the means here. That is like saying that it was okay for the Nazi’s to use the body parts of Jews that were murdered in concentration camps to experiment on because, well, they were already dead. Embryonic stem cell research is Nazism and mad scientist syndrome at its worst because it does not herald life; it insults and cheapens the whole concept of respecting life itself, whether one is pro-life or not.
The whole philosophy behind and supporting stem cell research has the substance of an echo and is a sad attempt to make human decency and basic moral ethics non-existent in America today—not only that, but it also makes our great Creator shutter with disgust and sadness.
We as a society, are witnessing a disturbing trend of utilitarian medical science, and as Christians, we must stand up for what we believe in—the sanctity of human life--because with embryonic stem cell research, there is no middle ground.
I do not believe that it is morally acceptable for anyone to profit off the murder of an unborn child, that is what I believe, and the conviction that enables me to live in peace. Some pro-lifer's are satifisied to sell-out their moral convictions to politicians and compromise, but because human life is a gift from God to us, I could not live with a clear conscience if I supported either this research or Bush's compromise.
Those ad-hominem, red-herring personal attacks are real old news by now.
In otherwords, they do not make you a more credible poster.
You lost any credibility for any further argument you might make with this statement. Discussion over.
I will never agree that President Bush's compromise was a moral compromise. It was a political one that will not cost one more innocent life. And I disagree that there was no need to make a compromise. IMO, it was a Solomonic decision to stop the murder.
Those embryos have already been murdered, and as I have stated before, is no different than using the cadavers of murder victims in medical schools for research.
I am also well aware that embryonic stem cells are not superior to adult stem cells, and that anything we need to find out can be learned from the study of those stem cells. I agree that any process that would destroy them is morally unacceptable, which is why President Bush stopped their destruction.
The pro-death crowd hates George W. Bush because he is so strongly pro-life, and they know that the future of the abortion industry is in grave danger. And I praise the Lord for that! Try praying for him, instead of tearing him down. He's on our side.
I have no 'rainbow wishes' and 'sugarplum dreams.' I have fact after fact, reality after reality, of a man of God, who in obedience to Him, is serving this country with courage and righteousness. But any way I address issues will be ignored by you, because you see only what you want to see.
I admit that I am not as well informed about immigration as you are, because it seems to be the only issue you care about, and you have many 'facts' at your fingertips. I have read, and could cite people who disagree with those 'facts,' but there would be no point in that, because you would disagree, regardless of the truth of those statements.
I'd love to know the real source of your hatred, but I have a feeling you don't even know that yourself. But I will not share the cynicism you have for our President, because I have seen too much that counters it. I will not share the hatred you feel for him, and your sense that you have somehow been personally betrayed by him, because his Presidency, and the courageous and moral stands he has taken, has surpassed my highest expectations.
I never expected to agree with everything he has done, and he has done things I strongly disagree with. But at the end of his 8 years, this country will have made an enormous swing toward the moral and the good that it once stood for. We were swirling down the moral toilet for 8 years, and we have been given an enormous blessing by the Lord in this President. I feel very sorry that you refuse to share in the JOY that God, in his mercy has given us.
Lotta that going around, huh?
Didn't think so.
Please accept my encouragement.......
Thinking for yourself is good. Don't be taken in!
If you know, at the core of your being, that what you're being told can't possibly be true............
It isn't.
The future of our nation may depend on the decisions of you and others like you, I hope you can choose wisely.
Didn't think so.
Please accept my encouragement.......
Thinking for yourself is good. Don't be taken in!
If you know, at the core of your being, that what you're being told can't possibly be true............
It isn't.
The future of our nation may depend on the decisions of you and others like you, I hope you can choose wisely.
Well Said!
Because he has the rapt unearned adoration of optimists he has the potential to do more damage in 8 years than Clinton could in 12 with his globalist agenda. Yes that is a major issue with me, all else hinges on that one issue. Our culture hinges on it, our Consitution hinges on it, our freedom hinges on it, our sovereignty hinges on it, our future as a Western nation hinges on it.
All the other things you list, which are no doubt good, are only "asides" to the direction we are being rushed in. And I do mean rushed, pushed, shoved, and hauled in. If you havn't noticed the globalist, of which Bush is a major player, are in earnest agenda push mode. This is their big chance to bring their ideal of a world wide corporate workers paradise into realization and national identity can go hang. We are all being shoved into the "Big Tent", and you better ask yourself what kind of freak show is in that tent before entering because war will the the only exit.
Does Bush have good intentions? Maybe. Does he fear us being left behind in the global economic scheme of things? Yes. Does he think making the West, from the northern most of Canada to the tip of Cape Horn one big free trade zone to offset Europs EU is needed to insure we stay a world power? No doubt. Is he right about any of the above? No. Al Queda could not do anything a fraction more destructive to our culture and way of life.
Here is an interesting thread you might want to read that explains things much better than I can, check it out if you care to. "Multiculturalism and the Fall of Western Civilization". Given that it is the intention of Liberal's, college professors to politicians, to keep a wedge driven between races and cultures, globalism has zero chance of surviving the ethnic wars that are on their way between each culture and race demanding not only a better share of the pie, but demanding to be the one cutting up the pie.
You say you do not feel hate, but your posts drip with cynicism, both about President Bush, and about those of us who support him.
Because he has the rapt unearned adoration of optimists he has the potential to do more damage in 8 years than Clinton could in 12 with his globalist agenda.
This is an absurd statement that patronizes everyone who does not share your cynicism. In the first place, the genuine admiration and respect of the vast majority of thinking, Conservative Christians is not in any way, shape or form "rapt unearned adoration."
I do not believe, in spite of his support of free trade, that George W. Bush is a "globalist." His pro-American 'who cares what the Euroweenies think' positions have earned him the scorn of leftists worldwide. How do you factor that, and his snubs of the UN, Kyoto, and the Eco-nuts into your cute little 'Bush is a globalist who doesn't care about America' theory. I'm sure you try to rationalize it somehow, but it won't work, because he is not a 'multiculturalist globalist' because he believes in free trade.
To say that George Bush will do more damage to this country than Bill Clinton is so ludicrous, it makes me wonder if you have any ability to think rationally at all. Clinton sold military secrets to China, jeapordized our national security because of his debauchery, did nearly irreparable damage to our military, allowed terrorism to flourish because he didn't want to be bothered, corrupted our youth, promoted the slaughter of unborn babies, as well as promoting the gay lifestyle, corruption at every level of government, and a tyrannical Justice department, and he laughed in the face of everything that is good and right in America.
He is an evil man who almost single handedly destroyed this great nation through his corruption. And you claim that saying George W. Bush is going to do more damage than he did is not hate?! Give me a break!
You have, in a very short thread, compared our moral, honorable President to Adolf Hitler, and Bill Clinton because you don't like his position on a unified Western Hemisphere. Do you really expect any rational person to take you seriously? Don't bank on it.
From the private emails I have received and the responses on this thread about my position, I would say yes, I am being taken seriously. It is serious. Free trade in the Western Hemisphere is something that should be waded into one fraction of an inch at a time. Not by "Fast Track", not by entangling treaties that contradict our Constitution. Already NAFTA has resulted in a law suit demanding that one of our oil companies use an expensive and useless additive in their product. Already our sovereignty is under attack from Mexico threatening to sue us over immigrant rights. And who gets to decide all these things that we will be forced to abide by? Pro-Americans, elected officals, Constitutionalists, Americans? Nope. An appointed board, far from the reach of voters or sovereignty.
This is what Bush is leading us to, I'll leave it up to the individual to decide if it's good or bad.
You negate any possible gains you might make in help others to understand, or convincing them to agree with your view of the issues because of your demeaning, angry rhetoric.
I have told you before, that I am very concerned about the issue of immigration, and that I agree with you, at least in part. But you have destroyed any impact you might have on me, and any others who are interested in learning the actual facts, because of your extreme (and dead wrong) accusations of the President and those of us who respect him, that always accompany your posts.
If you ever do work through your anger, and become more rational, let me know, and we'll talk again. I'm interested in truth....not open hostility.
Until then, bye bye.....
Again, your logic used to support Bush's compromise is nonsensical. People make the conscious decision to will their bodies to scientific research before they die. The unborn are never given this choice. So how is this in any way the same?
I'm real curious about this name calling thing, when did I engage in name calling? Angry retoric? I'd like to see that also as I havn't been angry that I know of. Unless your projecting your anger onto me or something. I think I have stuck to the issue pretty well, without name calling, or rancor. I hope you read the thread I suggested, the guys that wrote it are not angry either, just clear sighted.
The only thing you are is an idiot. Want some cyber mouthwash?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.