Most current facts and things that arise (archives
before GWB election)
10-12-00
'Moral' issues discussed in the second presidential debate last evening.
Here are some links to see what has happened in Texas.
First, justices he has appointed:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_btl/20000907_xcbtl_consider_y.shtml
Second, what his cabinet may look like: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_btl/20001004_xcbtl_president_.shtml
A vote for Phillips sends a message. A vote for Buchanan would too, but may be
less effective within a party that is divided. Where does our God want us to stand?
| MR. LEHRER: New subject, new question. Another vice
presidential debate follow-up.
Governor, both Senator Lieberman and Secretary Cheney said they were sympathetically
rethinking their views on same-sex relationships. What's your position on that?
GOV. BUSH: I'm not for gay marriage. I think marriage is a sacred institution between a
man and a woman. And I appreciated the way the administration signed the Defense of
Marriage Act. I assume the vice president supported it when the president signed that
bill, and supports it now.
But I think -- I think marriage is a sacred institution. I'm
going to be respectful for people who may disagree with me. I've had a record of doing so
in the state of Texas. I've been a person that's been called a uniter, not a divider,
because I accepted some -- I accept other people's points of view. But I feel strongly
that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
MR. LEHRER: Vice President Gore?
...
MR. LEHRER: Do you believe, in general terms, that gays andlesbians should have the
same rights as other Americans?
GOV. BUSH: Yes. I don't think they ought to have special
rights, but I think they ought to have the same rights.
VICE PRESIDENT GORE: Well, there's a law pending called the Employment Non-Discrimination
Act. I strongly support it. What it says is that gays and lesbians can't be fired from
their job because they're gay or lesbian. And it would be a federal law preventing that.
Now I wonder if the -- it's been blocked by the opponents in the majority in the Congress.
I wonder if the governor would lend his support to that law.
MR. LEHRER: Governor?
GOV. BUSH: (Inaudible) -- is the questioning coming around here?
MR. LEHRER: Well, it's a logical reply --
GOV. BUSH: Well, I have no idea. I mean, he can throw out all kinds -- I don't know the
particulars of this law. I will tell you, I'm the kind of person -- I don't hire or fire
somebody based upon their sexual orientation.
As a matter of fact, I'd like to take the issue a little farther.
I don't really think it's any of my -- you know, any of my concerns what -- how you
conduct your sex life. And I think that's a private matter. And I think that's the way it
ought to be.
But I'm going to be respectful for people. I'll tolerate people. And I support equal
rights but not special rights for people.
MR. LEHRER: And "special rights" -- how does that affect gays and lesbians?
GOV. BUSH: Well, it'd be if they're given special protective status. And that doesn't mean
we shouldn't fully enforce laws and fully protect people and fully honor people, which I
will do as the president of the United States. |
True Christians do not want to harm anyone and above all other groups,
actively participate in helping others. ENDA (Employee Non-Discrimination Act) has
been well publicized. Can we plead ignorance?
10-6-00
The VP debate was last evening. God's values were inappropriately trampled for
the sake of triangulation. First things became last.
RU-486, the latest evidence of our losing with the current approach. Babies die.
We contribute to this by supporting folks who really don't understand the
importance of honoring God. Don't say we don't have a choice. We had an easier
choice earlier. Why did we believe that only Bush could win before any votes were
taken? Why didn't we vote for the others? We believed the self-fulfilling
prophecy and we see where that got us now. Now, we must still stand firm,
whether or not we 'can win' or else displease God, with less possibilities of winning.
We were too busy with our pleasures to search out the truth. The Christian
and non-Christian leadership sold God out much too cheaply.
Christians are to blame for the lack of moral integrity of our Republican and
Democratic candidates! No one else. God expects us to go and make disciples
but we have failed to teach in a meaningful way what God's values are and why we should
try to please Him. We have frittered away the most Godly, Blessed form of government
with the exception of Israel of the Old Testament.
Christians! When will we wake up? What more evidence do we need to realize
the Republican presidential ticket does not speak for us? Unfortunately, They now
speak against God's values. Now, when we choose to vote for them, we become a large
part of the problem. Period.
If we choose Bush/Cheney, we send the signal that God's values are not important to the
Republicans and the other Americans we should be reaching out to with the truth.
Phillips and Buchanan refuse to please the "world", showing a respectable fear
of God. God's judgment - are you ready? It is late, can we stop it? We
have offended our Maker. We have lost our witness, salt and light. Oh Lord,
please help us.
Pat Buchanan seems to be making the most of the deficit left by the Bush strategists
and is hammering hard to call Christians to his side. If anything, he seems to be
standing stronger for the moral issues as compared to early in the primaries.
Hooray! Howard Phillips is unwavering and has the unity of his party's
support. Thank God. No ambiguity. No triangulation to win. Just
faith and perseverance. Keep it up. Pick only from the best who fail to barter
God's values.
Our turn now.
| 10-3-00 First Presidential Debate MR. LEHRER: Governor Bush, if elected president, would you try
to overturn the FDA's approval last week of the abortion pill, RU-486?
GOV. BUSH: I don't think a president can do that. I was
disappointed in the ruling because I think abortions ought to be more
rare in America. And I'm worried that that pill will create more
abortion -- will cause more people to have abortions.
This is a very important topic and it's a very sensitive topic
because a lot of good people disagree on the issue. I think what the
next president ought to do is to promote a culture of life in America
-- as the life of the elderly and the life of those living all across
the country, life of the unborn. As a matter of fact, I think a noble
goal for this country is that every child born and unborn ought to be
protected in law and welcomed in life. But I know we've got to change
a lot of minds before we get there in America. What I do believe is
we can find good common ground on issues like parental notification or
parental consent, and I know we need to ban partial-birth abortions.
This is a place where my opponent and I have strong disagreements. I
believe banning partial-birth abortion would be a positive step toward
reducing the number of abortions in America.
This is an issue that's going to require a new attitude. We've
been battling over abortion for a long period of time. Surely this
nation can come together to promote the value of life. Surely we can
fight off these laws that will encourage to -- to allow doctors to
take the lives of our seniors. Surely we can work together to create
a culture of life so some of these youngsters who feel like they can
take a neighbor's life with a gun will understand that that's not the
way America is meant to be. And surely we can find common ground to
reduce the number of abortions in America.
As to the drug itself, I mentioned I was disappointed. I hope --
and I -- I hope the FDA took its time to make sure that American women
will be safe who use this drug.
|
10-5-00 VP Debate SHAW: Senator, sexual orientation.
Should
a male who loves a male and a female who
loves a female have all --all -- the constitutional
rights enjoyed by every American citizen?
LIEBERMAN: Very current and difficult question,
and I've been thinking about it, and I want to explain
what my thoughts have been.
Maybe I should begin this answer by going back to
the beginning of the country and the Declaration of
Independence, which says right there at the outset
that all of us are created equal and that we're endowed,
not by any bunch of politicians or philosophers, but by
our creator with those inalienable rights to life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness.
At the beginning of our history, that promise, that
ideal, was not realized or experienced by all Americans.
But over time since then we have -- we have extended
the orbit of that promise. And in our time at the frontier
of that effort is extending those kinds of rights to gay
and lesbian Americans who are citizens of this country and
children of the same awesome god, just as much as any of
the rest of us are. That's why I have been an origina
co-sponsor of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act,
which aims to prevent gay and lesbian Americans who
are otherwise qualified from being discriminated against
in a workplace. And I've sponsored other pieces of
legislation and other -- taken other actions that carry
out that ideal. The question you pose is a difficult one,
for this reason: It confronts or challenges the traditional
notion of marriage as being limited to a heterosexual
couple, which I support.
LIEBERMAN: But I must say, I'm thinking about this
because I have friends who are in gay and lesbian
partnerships who have said to me, "Isn't it unfair that
we don't have similar legal rights to inheritance, to
visitation when one of the partners is ill, to health
care benefits?" And that's why I'm thinking about it.
And my mind is open to taking some action that will
address those elements of unfairness while respecting
the traditional religious and civil institution of marriage.
SHAW: Mr. Secretary?
CHENEY: This is a tough one, Bernie. The fact of the
matter is, we live in a free society and freedom means
freedom for everybody. We don't get to choose, and
shouldn't be able to choose, and say, "You get to live free,
but you don't."
And I think that means that people should be free to
enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter
into. It's really no one else's business in terms of trying
to regulate or prohibit behavior in that regard.
The next step then, of course, is the question you asked
of whether or not there ought to be some kind of official
sanction, if you will, of the relationship or if these
relationships should be treated the same way a conventional
marriage is. That's a tougher problem. That's not a slam
dunk.
I think the fact of the matter, of course, is that matter is
regulated by the states. I think different states are likely to
come to different conclusions and that's appropriate. I
don't think there should necessarily be a federal policy
in this area.
I try to be open-minded about it as much as I can and
tolerant of those relationships.
CHENEY: And like Joe, I also wrestle with the extent
to which there ought to be legal sanction of those
relationships. I think we ought to do everything we can
to tolerate and accommodate whatever kind of relationships
people want to enter into.
SHAW: Mr. Secretary, this question is for you. Would you
support the effort of House Republicans who want
legislation to restrict distribution of the abortion drug RU-486?
CHENEY: Bernie, the abortion issue is a very tough one,
without question, and a very important one. And Governor
Bush and I have emphasized that, while we clearly are both
pro-life, that's what we believe, that we want to look for
ways to try to reduce the incidence of abortion in our
society. Many on the pro-choice side have said exactly
the same thing. Even Bill Clinton, who's been a supporter of
abortion rights, has advocated reducing abortion to make it
as rare as possible.
CHENEY: With respect to the questionof RU-486, we believe
that -- ofcourse, that it's recently been approved by the FDA,
that it really was a question of whether or not it was safe to
be used by women. They didn't address the -- sort of, the
question of whether or not there should or should not be
abortion in the society, so much as evaluate that particular
drug.
What we'd like to be able to do is to look for ways to reach
across the divide between the two points of view and find
things that we can do together to reduce the incidence of
abortion.
We look at such things as promoting adoption as an
alternative, encouraging the parental notification, and we
also think banning the horrific practice of partial-birth
abortions is an area where there could be agreement.
Congress has twice passed, by overwhelming margins,
significant number of votes from both parties, the ban on
partial-birth abortions. Twice it's been vetoed by Bill
Clinton and Al Gore. Now, we would hope that eventually
they would recognize that that's not a good position for
them to be in.
With respect to the RU-486 proposal, at this stage, I
haven't looked in particular at that particular piece of
legislation. Governor Bush made it clear the other
night that he did not anticipate that he would be able to
go in and direct the FDA to reverse course on that
particular issue, primarily because they say the decision
they made was on the efficacy of the drug, not the
question of whether or not we supported abortion.
LIEBERMAN: Bernie, this is a very important question
and it is one on which these two tickets have dramatically
different points of view. My answer is no, I would not
support legislation that is being introduced in Congress
to override the Food and Drug Administration decision
on RU-486. |
October 4, 2000
There has been little to add for some time. The first debate between Bush and
Gore was last evening. To cut to the chase, Bush did not waver one bit on his
ill-conceived stand regarding abortions. He is the same today as 2 years ago when
the orchestration began. Pro-lifers have had no positive impact here.
No one is happy with that confusing stand. Gore can punch holes in the reasoning.
Bush, just come out and take a strong stand and explain why we must. Won't
happen, unfortunately.
Another thing, though. Pat Buchanan and Howard Phillips have been filling the
pro-life hole left by Bush. Buchanan seems to be intensifying his efforts on this
account, as compared to earlier in the election process. This is good news.
The most outspoken one, Phillips, is largely ignored to our detriment.
Before we know it, our opportunity to make a statement for God and His values will be
lost. Choose you this day whom you will serve, God or the Republican leadership.
There was a debate of third-party candidates last Thursday and Phillips stood firm.
Buchanan did not show. Another one is expected October 20, hosted by Judicial
Watch.
August 28, 2000
Not much to add. One thing that was not apparent to most viewers of the
Democratic Convention was pointed out by Brit Hume. In the past, they have always
closed the convention with the "Battle Hymn of the Republic". They
couldn't stomach the great words of that song and it was omitted this year. We take
God out and we incur His judgment and His wrath and the absence of His blessing. Do
you really want leaders like that who will help destroy us?
August 8, 2000
Christians- should we vote for a fellow Christian, G.W. Bush?
Another concern we should use to decide - is that the best way to teach a fellow
Christian?
Please don't continue to mislead a relatively new Christian, G.W. Bush by your willingness
to compromise. As Christians, we are each accountable to Almighty God for the influence we
have on others. Bush needs to hear unwavering Godly values, not acceptance of the worldly
vision. By allowing for compromise, he will lose the potential for his greatness in the
kingdom of heaven! This supersedes whatever office he may obtain on earth. Christians who
accept this leavened doctrine actually mislead him (and others) at the cost of Bush's (and
their) possible eternal greatness.
Bush needs to mature as a Christian and to see his role as each of us should, never to
compromise on God's values-whatever
the cost. By accepting his compromise, you are keeping him on milk when he should be
eating steak. He deserves better. The rest of us 'Christians' fail when we support him
under these circumstances. When we condone his compromise, we injure his development as a
Christian. When we show him God's way - in everything, we have done our part to disciple
the nice man.
If politics is different, then there would be biblical evidence that was true. There is no
such evidence. The truth is just the opposite- from Daniel to John the Baptist, politics
still falls under God's biblical direction to never, ever compromise! Check it out for
yourself.
Why would politics be different, if the Bible says -
Deuteronomy 5:33 Walk in all the way that the LORD your God
has commanded you, so that you may live and
prosper and prolong your days in the land that you will possess.
Deuteronomy 10:12 And now, O Israel, what does the LORD your God ask of you but to fear
the LORD your God, to
walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve the LORD your God
with all your heart and with all your
soul,
Joshua 22:5 But be very careful to keep the commandment and the law that Moses the servant
of the LORD gave you:
to love the LORD your God, to walk in all his ways, to obey
his commands, to hold fast to him and to serve him
with all your heart and all your
soul."
1 Kings 8:58 May he turn our hearts to him, to walk in all his
ways and to keep the commands, decrees and
regulations he gave our fathers.
Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean
not on your own understanding; 6 in all your ways
acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight. 7 Do not be wise in your own eyes;
fear the LORD and
shun evil.
James 1:27 Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look
after orphans and widows in
their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.
etc., etc.
We are each responsible for discipling others such as the Governor. When we show them they
can compromise, we fail God. If only all Christians would hear 'well done good and
faithful servant' and no one to hear 'depart from me I never knew you'.
Sudanese Christians would quickly embrace this message. American Christians have failed.
We must repent and engage in
politics only as God directs, as we are foremost, His servants. God's values must come
first. Then the results are up to
Him. Isn't that what we should strive for, anyway?
8/4/00
The 2000 Republican Convention ended last evening. G.W. Bush has been successful
in disarming his critics and in magically making pro-life forks and pro-choice folks
pleased, many 'leaders' on both sides beliving they were winners. Has G.W. perfected
Clinton's "Third Way" to unite with deception?
Can both groups be correct? Only if a partial victory is adequate. How can
this be the case when the concern is as critical as life and death? Would God be
pleased with His people if they fail to end the spilling of 'innocent blood' by refusing
to stand firm? Today, could our 'idols of Canaan' now be 'sexual freedom' and
wealth? Can we afford to wait for a slow change (that won't happen anyway)?
| Psalms 106:36 They worshiped their idols, which
became a snare to them. 37 They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to demons. 38
They shed innocent blood , the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to
the idols of Canaan, and the land was desecrated by their blood . 39 They defiled
themselves by what they did; by their deeds they prostituted themselves. 40 Therefore the
LORD was angry with his people and abhorred his inheritance. 41 He handed them over to the
nations, and their foes ruled over them. |
In Dick Cheney's acceptance speech, filled with upbeat remarks, there
was no mention of abortion, even in a fairly indirect manner. The next night, G.W.
Bush managed a sum total of these following remarks:
"But most of all, we must teach our children the
values that defeat violence. I will lead our nation toward a culture that values life --
the life of the elderly and sick, the life of the young and the life of the unborn.
Good people can disagree on this issue, but surely we can
agree on ways to value life by promoting adoption, parental notification. And when
Congress sends me a bill against partial-birth abortion, I will sign it into law."
Politically this is a safe stand. All except the most brazen, extremist
'pro-choicers' could disagree with these statements, who would never vote for Bush,
anyway. He has made it clear that his interest is limited to pleasing all people to
the extent possible, without jeopardizing personal political gain or other supposedly more
important issues. In a war worth fighting, there are hills worth dying for.
Unfortunately, G.W. has not engaged in this critical battle. Why should he risk
himself when we Christians are not willing to do the same, accepting his weak stand.
We accept his approach so he has learned that he need not change.
He is also factually incorrect. 'Good people' cannot disagree on this 'issue'.
None of us are 'good' (Mark 10:18) and how much moreso those who are under the
deception that abortion is ok. This is true of many of us who are now adamantly
pro-life. This is a cultural battle that has such publicity and propaganda to the
contrary that it is not difficult (and enticing) to think that reasonable people can
disagree. If G.W. truly embraced the horror of this reason for American
condemnation, he would lead us out of this error without hesitation. With his
disappointing stance, he shows a lack of leadership and lack of critical acknowledgment of
our holocaust to be judged by God.
Still, it is easy to see how G.W. will take the stand he does in order to simply obtain
a win in the election. He has drawn the line in the sand where he will not cross.
Thank God, if G.W. should be elected, partial birth abortion should be ended (until
half of his appointed justices side with most of the rest of the Supreme Court and
overturns the legislation, probably-see
his past history). He is not willing to take a stronger stand during an
acceptance speech when he has courted the pro-abortionists. He will not stand firm
when the 'more important' legislation needs to be passed on education, social security,
etc., and the deals cut for votes to begin. As an individual Christian, how
can I choose to compromise? It is only with our Father, God's disappointment.
If we stand without compromise, God is pleased.
Another point. G.W. Bush's people running the convention kept Alan Keyes away
from the cameras but proudly displayed an openly homosexual congressman who gave a speech
on trade. Gen. Colin Powell, a pro-abortionist, received a large time slot, using
much of his time espousing his own beliefs. Even still, they chose to keep Keyes
away from his own 21 delegates he won during the primaries. If Bush really wanted to
see a change in the hearts of Americans regarding the abortion issue, they could have
worked with Keyes, the great orator he is, to deliver an impressive speech. Not
now. It is too risky to tell the truth and to do what is right.
It seems everyone else is wanted in the party, free of charge but the core base who
feel strongly about God's values are once again, simply taken for granted. Will we
ever learn? Are we showing the rest of the world that Christians are ignorant?
That would not please God, the giver of wisdom! And we wonder why
non-Christians show us no respect. Why there is no yearning by the rest of society
to join our ranks? We have taught G.W. Bush that he can compromise. We must
hang our heads in shame.
Wednesday, July 26, 2000
G.W. Bush chose Dick Cheney as his running mate. It would be impossible to find a nicer
couple of fellows to have as our leaders. Both deserve respect. Both appear to be quality
individuals. We can thank the Governor for not reaching too far to do the politically
expedient choice of a pro-abortion VP. We can also thank God and all of us praying for the
right outcome in this regard. This choice did not dilute the ticket, but unfortunately
does not help the problem of misplaced priorities, continuing our country's demise.
It is troubling that in his acceptance speech, the 4 issues worthy of being discussed
were Social Security, Medicare, Education and schools and shoring up the Military. He
failed to mention the divisive ‘issue’ of abortion.
On last evening’s Larry King Live regarding the issue of abortion, he said:
KING: With Dick Cheney. He's in Austin, Texas, where, today, George Bush
said he will be his running mate. KING: Dick, on the abortion issue, a couple years ago on this Program you
said that you'd been pro-life all your life, and that Included every aspect of pro-life. I
believe you'd even say you're pro-life in the area of rape and incest; right? You believe
the fetus is a person.
D. CHENEY: Well, I consistently supported the pro-life position, Larry, but I don't
have any problem supporting the pro-life Proposition as Governor Bush has supported it,
that is that it would allow for exceptions for rape, incest or the life of mother.
I also think the governor's made a very important point here that, of course, at this
point, I don't think there's that much support, in terms of being able to pass a pro-life
amendment. I think the important thing for us is to try to provide the kind of leadership
to reduce
abortions as much possible* and to deal
with those cultural and social issues, make sure there's an aggressive opportunity out
there for people to pursue the adoption course, for example.
I think there are a number of areas where the American people
can agree, where we do have support for positions that, in effect, would reduce the
incidence of abortion, and I think a lot of people, pro-life and pro- choice, could
support.
KING: Have you changed, then,
in the area of rape and incest? Have you modified your own views?
D. CHENEY: No, I have, over the years, generally supported the pro-life amendment.
Sometimes it has been offered with the exceptions, sometimes without -- really dependent
on the circumstances.
I can recall, I think, debates in the House of
Representatives when the issue was whether or not you'd use federal funding to finance
abortions, where it was offered in different terms.
KING: You think it's a major
issue in the campaign?
D. CHENEY: Well, I don't
think so. That is to say, I don't believe it ought to be the defining issue for our party.
I think we've got to be a party that's big enough to incorporate within it people of
diverse views.
Obviously, this is an emotional issue for everybody. It's a difficult kind of issue to
-- for people to compromise on. I think we've got to be understanding and tolerant of one
another's views, and look for ways to work for common solution, and hopefully look for
ways to give maximum protection to life. |
Comments on the above:
First, he skirted the divisive question asked –whether or not the fetus was a
human. Of course, this in itself is picky but taken in context with the rest of the
answers, it signified a softening of his previously strong stand, to come in line with the
Governor’s views. He isn’t changing the Governor’s stand but acclimating to
it.
The pro-life amendment issue is interesting. There is truth that such an amendment
would not pass today. Bush is also correct that we must have a change in the hearts of
Americans in order to see passage of such an amendment.
If we had change in the hearts of
Americans, we would not need a pro-life amendment!
Bush’s reasoning is circular and leads nowhere, exactly what we should expect from
the nice Governor, who has chosen to run on less divisive (and less important from
God’s standpoint) issues that Cheney outlined above. Bush has already chosen not to
take the lead to help the end of abortion to come about. That decision, in itself, is not
an option for us to choose, if we want to please God.
How do we change the hearts? By each of us setting an example. When we
refuse to compromise, we show that moral issues are of critical importance. When we
compromise, we show that these 'issues' are not that important. Does this approach
wash with God? We inadvertently but clearly show incorrect priorities to the
politicians who juggle their 'issues', therefore pushing God's values to the rear.
We must also pray.
The asterisk (*) above has been essentially stated by Clinton in the past. Aren’t
we tired of the same meaningless song?
The other solutions must occur, that is the Christian’s duty. Give us the
opportunity to do that. May there be thousands of adoptions instead of abortions.
For you pro-lifers out there, unfortunately a vote for Bush leads to nowhere with the
abortion issue, without his positional change. You place hope in a man, where it will be
let down (judicial appointments, etc.), as compared to hope in an Almighty God who would
be pleased with your unwavering decision (such as John the Baptist, Daniel, etc.).
The idea of tolerance, the idea that abortion should not be a defining issue of the
party, is troubling.
If someone wants to scrape the paint off another’s car, we shouldn’t tolerate
that behavior. How much more so, dealing with the idea of destroying a fetus or baby? It
simply is not an ‘issue’. It is better classified as ‘a decision of extreme
importance’. [Of course we should love and care for the mothers who find
themselves in difficult pregnancies and pray for the abortionists. We should
consider what Jesus would do for these individuals, never hate those deceived.]-addendum
8/9/00
Unfortunately, Alan Keyes so far has chosen to stand with Bush and Cheney. Keyes knows
the above better than most of us. His judgment should be respected but he will likely
regret this choice. Most unfortunately, this decision keeps him postured as an interesting
sideshow (possibly too harsh) in the Republican Party when he could be stronger and
unified in purpose (where it counts most) with the Constitution Party. Of course the
Republican and current (so called) religious leaders' opinions are drastically wrong, not
giving the great orator and statesman the credit he is due. The Republican Party
leadership has largely rejected him though they talk about tolerance and they welcome the
pro-choice folks. To Keyes’ credit, though, he fought the good fight, but the battle
isn’t over. We are in a marathon, don’t quit yet.
Although Howard Phillips lacks perfection, he knows the above and is waiting and
working for the rest of Christian America to return to the mind-set of our founding
fathers. Will it take God’s judgment to make this come about? It will happen,
if we don’t fix it ourselves. The judgment may be utter destruction of our country.
Whatever it entails, we will regret our choices not to fix things when we could, or is it
too late now?
We must pray Bush will do right, especially if he is elected. Gore deserves the same.
Is there really a difference in someone who will stand for abortion and someone who
won’t stand, when abortions are already occurring? At least Gore can’t stab you
in the back. Both chose multinational corporation’s contributions over standing
against Chinese persecution. When we vote for these individuals, we have willfully chosen
and embraced these values. Does this please God?
It seems that the decisions which matter most to God, are treated basically the same by
the leading candidates. Christian, where do you stand?
We must pray for revival of the people, quickly.
Jeremiah 6:10 To whom
can I speak and give warning? Who will listen to me? Their ears are closed so they cannot
hear. The word of the LORD is offensive to them; they find no pleasure in it. 11
But I am full of the wrath of the LORD, and I cannot hold it in. "Pour it out
on the children in the street and on the young men gathered together; both husband and
wife will be caught in it, and the old, those weighed down with years. 12 Their houses
will be turned over to others, together with their fields and their wives, when I stretch
out my hand against those who live in the land," declares the LORD. 13 "From the least to the greatest, all are greedy
for gain; prophets and priests alike, all practice deceit. 14 They dress the wound of my
people as though it were not serious. `Peace, peace,' they say, when there is no peace. 15
Are they ashamed of their loathsome conduct? No, they have no shame at all; they do not
even know how to blush. So they will fall among the fallen; they will be brought
down when I punish them," says the LORD. 16 This is what the LORD says: "Stand at the
crossroads and look; ask for the ancient paths, ask where the good way is, and walk in it,
and you will find rest for your souls. But you said, `We will not walk in it.' 17 I
appointed watchmen over you and said, ` Listen to the sound of the trumpet!' But you said,
`We will not listen .' 18 Therefore hear, O nations; observe, O witnesses, what will
happen to them. 19 Hear, O earth: I am bringing disaster on this people, the fruit of
their schemes, because they have not listened to my words and have rejected my law. 20
What do I care about incense from Sheba or sweet calamus from a distant land? Your burnt
offerings are not acceptable; your
sacrifices do not please me."
|
Oh, if only Bush/Cheney were good enough.
Please pray.
______________________________________________
6/7/00
More information to post.
The final primaries have been completed. The Republican Convention is July
31-August 3. Gerald Ford called for G.W. Bush to pick a pro-choice running mate.
Keyes has gone the distance. We will see what direction the Republicans
players decide to go in a few weeks.
Pat Buchanan is having problems with some of the leadership in the Reform Party who is
not interested in the moral stands he takes. As of ~ 1 week ago, he was on the
ballot in ~25 states.
Howard Phillips is wanting a running mate. He was ~1 week ago, on 30 states'
ballots!, more than the Reform Party!!! They had completed the applications for 12
other states at that time. They are on target for all but ~2 states by election day.
The Constitution Party is solid with the main emphasis on the moral issues,
not embarassed by their stand.
What will happen to Keyes? Interesting. It isn't over, yet. Please
pray for all parties and candidates. God's judgment will not rest for long.
Here are the latest results from the rest of the Republican primaries.
| |
OR |
AR |
AL |
MT |
NJ |
NM |
SD |
| Bush |
86% |
80% |
88% |
80% |
83% |
83% |
78% |
| Keyes |
14% |
20% |
12% |
19% |
17% |
7% |
8% |
| McCain |
|
|
|
|
|
10% |
14% |
5/18/00
G.W. Bush made a strong statement yesterday calling for permanent trade relations with China.
The campaign contributors to his run have begun to profit on their investment. Christians in China are persecuted, and this is reportedly
increasing. China is purchasing/leasing oil reserves from Sudan. Sudan’s government
is Muslim and have butchered thousands of the Christians in their nation as they gain
control over the land that Petro China wants for their use (make sure your mutual
funds don't include this). It is a sad day for Christians. Our brothers and sisters are
bleeding and injured because of our love of money and our indifference to their plight!!
May God change our hearts. The love of money really hurts Christ’s church. Where
will you stand?
G.W. Bush chose wrong. He is woefully inadequate to represent Christian interests, as
is now perfectly evident unless he changes. Will God be pleased if His people vote for
Bush, at the expense of other Christians? Where is our faith?
The following was emailed to this site and makes excellent points. Please contact
your representatives regarding your stand on China, feel free to copy materials from the
following.
One thing left out of this letter and really is not considered a 'moral issue' but is
significant, is the leasing of the Panama Canal by Communist China, to fall under their
control. Is this wise? Howard Phillips'
site is an excellent source on the dangers of this threat.
_________________________________________________________
House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Re: Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) for China,
Dear Sir,
Please, VOTE AGAINST Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) for Communist China.
I am adamantly opposed to granting Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) for Communist
China because:
Americans overwhelmingly oppose Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) (61 percent to 29
percent). Communist China metes out torture and death for Catholic priests,
evangelical pastors, Buddhists in Tibet, and Muslim Uighurs in northwest China who defy
China's ruthless anti-religious regime Communist China has a policy of forced abortion
against their own women who have more than one child.
Communist China employs heavy-handed threats against its neighbors
Communist China has engaged in smuggling 2000 AK-47s, mortars, and
shoulder-mounted missiles into the US for sale to L.A. street gangs
Communist China has sought to corrupt our political process with its large donations to
the DNC and the Clinton Administration.
Communist China considers America to be "enemy, number one" and has aggressively
engaged in espionage to steal, purloin, and/or purchase our
nuclear defense secrets Communist China has, again this week, threatened to
blockade/destroy Taiwan (and/or Los Angeles, depending on our response to the defense of
that island nation)
Communist China has exported poison gas and cruise missiles to
outlaw regimes Communist China has evaded nuclear non-proliferation agreements.
All of these acts prove Communist China's rulers are not good neighbors in the world
community. [Indeed, these acts are very reminiscent of the Soviet Union's acts during the
'30s (and yet, we granted MFN status to the USSR then, and suffered those consequences
through 60 more years of death and Cold War)].
The message is clear. Learn the lessons of history! Human rights and freedom are America's
business and our foreign policy should reflect these principles.
The American people are not confused over this issue. Congress shouldn't be, either.
Please, ignore the entreaties of our export-hungry businesses and VOTE
AGAINST Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) for Communist China.
Sincerely,
_______________________________________________________
It has been some time since uploading new primary results, as the
site has been redone and things have quieted down. No surprises here.
| |
NC |
IN |
DC |
WV |
NE |
| Bush |
79% |
81% |
73% |
79% |
78% |
| Keyes |
8% |
--- |
<3% |
5% |
7% |
| McCain |
11% |
19% |
24% |
13% |
15% |
Copyright © 2001, Dio, Inc.
