September 11, 2002 -- More Miscues, Misfires, and Miscalculations!

In a moving speech at the Pentagon on September 11, 2002 President Bush made the following statement -- "The murder of innocents cannot be explained, only endured. And though they died in tragedy, they did not die in vain." In context of course he was referring to those who had lost their lives as a result of the terrorists' attacks a year earlier. But a far more serious issue can be raised about that statement which the president has never honestly addressed -- how about the millions of innocent unborn children who have been murdered in the womb in this country since 1973? And on the day in which Bush made that statement, more unborn children would have been violently murdered than the total number of victims of terrorist activity in the U.S. on September 11, 2001! Anyone out there have an explanation as to why he is so vocal on terrorists with Islamic identity but so silent on the kind that wear white coats and have the initials M.D. after their names? By the way, just pause for about 60 to 90 seconds and gaze at the little number cruncher just below -- each number represents another "murdered innocent" -- to use the president's terminology!

Unborn Babies Killed since Roe vs. Wade January 1973

April 12, 2002 -- Miscues, Misfires, and Miscalculations Continued!

As Israel aggressively pursued terrorists among the Palistinians and confined Yassar Arrafat to his headquarters, Bush was loudly demanding that Israel withdraw its forces from the west bank! Isn't this more than just a tad hypocritical? After all, hasn't the president launched into a multi billion dollar "war on terrorism" which is being waged on territory outside our own borders? And he POINTS the finger at Israel for going "over" the border in its quest to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure that is responsible for the deaths of so many Israelis!

And then there is the appointment of 4 more sodomites to government posts in the Bush administration! The homosexual newspaper, Washington Blade, first reported the additional appointments and all four have been active with the gay GOP group Log Cabin Republicans. It was also reported that at least 15 more gay appointees are either in the Bush administration pipeline or are 'slowly working their way out of the closet.'
So here are the latest ones:

• Mark Groombridge, who was appointed in October as a special assistant to the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. Groombridge told the Blade that he is a member of the "Log Cabin Republicans" of the District of Columbia and of "Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberties."
• Tod Burnett, who began work in February at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), working in the Office of the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response. He had been active with a chapter of the "Log Cabin Republicans" in Los Angeles. He had also worked for Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan. Riordan was defeated in the California Republican gubernatorial primary last month after refusing to sign a pledge that he would oppose granting the benefits of marriage to homosexuals.
• Jim Wiggins, who was also appointed to an EPA job, working in the Office of Regional Operations. Wiggins reportedly had served as president of the "Log Cabin Republicans" in New Orleans, as well as on the national board of the group.
• Stephen Fong, who was appointed by Bush last year to a post in the Department of Transportation. Fong had served as president of the "Log Cabin Republicans" in San Francisco.

As year 2001 closed out, President George W. Bush enjoyed extremely high popularity and approval ratings with his inspiring leadership in the weeks following the 01-09-11 terrorist attacks on the USA. So popular was the president at one stage that even the Democrats rallied behind him with an emphasis on all being Americans rather than "Republicans" and "Democrats!" However, it seems that as the new year has begun, it is back to partisan politics as usual -- but then, the Democrats do have to begin laying some ground work and prepare for the next presidential election, do they not?

It is not a very popular thing to do, unless you are a Democrat with presidential aspirations, to question the president's actions on some things. However, as a non-affiliated registered voter with absolutely no presidential ambition, may I suggest that there have been some serious miscues, misfires, and miscalculations on the part of the president which must be addressed. These blunders often involve situations in which the art of "playing politics" is utilized in order to court the favor and support of certain groups, even if it becomes necessary to compromise basic God-revealed values of right and wrong!

Early on at the beginning of his term President Bush, who professes "evangelical" Christian faith, appointed Scott Evertz, a leader among gay Republicans in Wisconsin, to be director of the White House Office of National AIDS Policy. Members of gay groups stated that this was the first time an openly gay man or a lesbian had been given an appointment by any Republican administration.

And in the weeks following the 9-11 attacks a new ambassador to Romania was appointed. Secretary of State Colin Powell presided as Michael Guest, an avowed homosexual, took the oath of office. It was reported that Guest's "domestic partner" was also present, and of course will be supported by us taxpayers as the "couple" takes up housekeeping at the U.S. embassy in Romania! A recent news release indicates that all is not going well at the embassy since this different "couple" has moved in and set up housekeeping. There are members of the staff there who are not at all comfortable with the situation -- and why not? Anyone with a bit of sensitivity as to God's standards of sexual morality isn't comfortable with the same gender coupling way of life, but apparently the president of the U.S. and his wife have little objections to it.

Needless to say, the sodomite/lesbian coalition will possibly not be so quick to vote straight Democratic come the next presidential election!

In the course of events prior to 9-11 there arose a furor of the first magnitude over embryonic stem cell research. Seems just about everyone was reaching for a mike or a pen for expression on this one. The president managed to keep the nation in suspense for a time as to how he would position himself on the issue of granting or withholding federal funds for research involving stem cells taken from human embryos. Finally the president announced that research could continue on stem cell lines already established, but no federal funding would be available for research on stem cells from newly developed embryos. The debate continues to rage over the destruction of embryos for stem cell research, with some insisting that these are humans in the early stage of development and others equally insistent that the embryo is simply an impersonal mass of cells much the same as an unborn child in the womb is an impersonal "fetus" which can be legally destroyed at will, and even sometimes when it is merely within seconds of being born!

See Partial Birth Abortion Description
Use return feature on browser to come back here.

The president is unwilling to go on record that an embryo is a human being whom God is forming for a special purpose in the divine plan He has for His creation. Those who hold to a Biblical view of human life don't have to express personal opinion on life and its formation on this issue -- just refer to the highest authority as explicitly revealed in Psalm 139 and Jeremiah 1:5!

The nation rallied behind the president and his administration following the terrorist attacks of 01-09-11. His public statements expressed outrage over the attacks coupled with a declaration of resolve to rid the world of terrorism and perpetrators of the same. Suddenly it was "politically correct" to wave and display the U.S. flag, publicly state and sing, "God bless America," hold special prayer services, and even get children and youth involved in projects related to America's war on terrorism!

However, certain key statements by both the president and Mrs. Bush prove to be gravely inconsistent at best and blatantly hypocritical at worst. The president in one message to the nation stated that "we respect life." Later in the context of signing legislation that would support efforts in restoration of order in post-Taliban Afghanistan the president indicated that we oppose violence which is directed toward women and children -- an obvious shot fired at the Taliban government policy. Laura Bush in a radio address on November 17, 2001 expressed a similar sentiment by stating,

"We may come from different backgrounds and faiths - but parents the world over love our children. We respect our mothers, our sisters and daughters. Fighting brutality against women and children is not the expression of a specific culture; it is the acceptance of our common humanity - a commitment shared by people of good will on every continent."

Now the question is this -- how can the "we respect life" statement along with the others which express opposition to violence/brutality directed toward women be reconciled with the fact that an average work day in the United States produces at least 3,700 or more violent acts involving women and their unborn children? Uh, the children end up mangled and dismembered and their mothers horribly scarred emotionally until genuine repentance and the forgiving and healing grace of the Lord Jesus Christ takes place in a personal experience!

The grisly toll as a result of violence done to unborn victims since January 1973 is at least 40 million or more as we enter the second year of the 21st Century. Estimates of Communistic "purges" under Stalin are in the range of 25 million or so and under Mao's Chinese Communists in the range of 30 million or more. Both these regimes were hard core atheists in philosophy and human life had no value in the pursuit of a Communistic agenda. But in a nation that has "In God We Trust" inscribed on coins and currency and vocally states, "One nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all" (emphasis mine) in its Pledge of Allegiance, we have beaten the communists for the international award of "Country with Most Deaths Due to Government Sanctioned Violence!"

Why are President and Mrs. Bush so silent about the violence taking place around the country on an average week day which takes more lives than were lost due to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001? Anger and rage over the lives lost on September 11, but not a hint at being really disturbed over lives lost and sacrificed in the name of "convenience" the rest of the year! The president did convey a brief message via a member of the House of Representatives to the participants in the 2001 March for Life in Washington DC and expressed some measure of concern, but there was absolutely nothing akin to the rage he expressed at the loss of innocent lives on 01-09-11! By way of contrast, President Reagan employed a live radio hookup to personally address the people who were participating in the annual March for Life.

See Justice Denied!
Use return feature on browser to come back here.

The name of Islam came into focus and the subject of much discussion when it became known that the terrorists and suspected mastermind of the operation, Osama bin Laden, were dedicated worshippers of Allah and practitioners of the religion of Islam.

Immediately there was a scramble to let the world know that these persons had perverted Islam, or as some put it -- they had "hijacked" Islam. And so we were reminded that the people identified as Muslims are a "peaceful" people and Islam is a "peaceful" religion. High profile Islamic leaders denounced the acts of terrorism of 9-11 and most governments controlled by Islam gave at least lip service to supporting Bush's call to unite in the war on terrorism.

President Bush went out of his way in conversation as well as hosting at least one event for Islamic leaders in an effort to persuade Americans and the world that bin Laden and the terrorist network religiously were little more than a bunch of mad dog fanatics whose sanity was to be called into question. And later on a favorable and very positive publicity moment as the president was shown with Muslim children.

Franklin Graham, son of evangelist Billy Graham, stirred up controversy by publicly stating that Islam at times is a violent and evil religion, and is a false religion as well! Franklin drew a lot of flak on that, including pressure from the White House to get him to back down. But he refused to retract his statements nor did he make any apology, which is what a number of persons felt he should do.

Actually, Franklin is not that far off base -- in fact, he concisely pinpointed how Islam really is when it is in control. Granted, the followers of Islam will be a very peaceful people, such as here in the United States, when they are a minority group and have no governmental or religious control over the masses. They have to be, especially here in the United States.

But one has to do some checking into the Koran, which certainly at points advocates standards comparable to that of Christianity and Judaism, but in its approach to unbelievers (those refusing to acknowledge and follow Allah) there are some interesting and startling statements made! Also, it is wise to take a look at how religious minorities fare in those countries that are under the total domination of Islam and where the Muslim population is at or near the 90 per cent level! In most, if not all of these, Christians just don't sit down and "dialog" with the Muslims to see what agreements they have, and Muslim clerics don't invite Christian clergy to come to special meetings to discuss "Christianity!"

See What Would Happen If We Could Export Some Unique USA Cultural Distinctives to Islamic Countries?
Use return feature on browser to come back here.

It is interesting to note that at one point a statement had been made to the effect that we were losing the "battle" so to speak when it came to the average Muslim in a culture dominated and controlled by Islam. Some news report clips revealed Muslims celebrating the attacks of 9-11 and these were simply citizens, not hard core members of a terrorist network. But if you are a Muslim and take your faith in Allah seriously, you recognize that unbelievers must either submit to Allah or be exterminated, because in unbelief they are corrupting influences in the world and in Islam the ultimate goal is a world where all acknowledge and worship Allah!

As for stating that Islam is a "false" religion, a Christian who is reasonably familiar with the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, and who has come to know Jesus as personal Savior and Lord, there is no choice but to agree with the statement! This is not a matter of personal opinion or a feeling that Christianity is superior in some way or other -- rather, it is an expressed conviction that rests solely on the personal claims and demands made by Jesus Christ Himself! Tragically, there are those within the ranks of professing Christianity who have sold out the church that bears the name of Jesus Christ and their own souls for the sake of a deceptive "unity" with other religious expressions in the world. It's a rather simple procedure -- to get along, go along, and this means that Jesus Christ has to be "demoted" from the position of being God, to that of a mere mortal teacher who has said some good things to teach and is on the same level as other renowned religious leaders of past and present!

See The Way - The Truth - The Life!
Use return feature on browser to come back here.

But the faithful Christian will do more than take an unwavering position that Jesus Christ is absolutely the only way of salvation and hope, and any religious expression that does not correctly acknowledge Him is indeed false and hopeless -- the faithful Christian will offer the Muslim, the Hindu, the Buddhist, or the follower of any other religion outside of Christianity the hope of salvation through Christ -- reminding that person Jesus died for them so that they might be forgiven and experience peace with God and the blessed assurance of eternal life. Jesus commanded His followers to confront the world with the message of salvation through Him (read the 28th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew). Again, a reminder - we have a choice here - fidelity to the Lord Jesus Christ Who died that we might live forever, or betray Him and say He's just one of the boys in the same league as Muhammad, Buddah, and others!

What does the future hold? Will Bush's declared "war" on terrorism continue unabated until we indeed have purged the world of all terrorists no matter where they have taken refuge?

It is doubtful -- if you are going to be a strong leader, then there has to be strong convictions of right and wrong, especially when you profess the Christian faith -- the moment you begin to compromise for the sake of pleasing certain groups and make "political points" with an eye on the next election, then you start down a very slippery slope! It is almost a given that more miscues, misfires, and miscalculations lie ahead, which could and should be avoided -- now let's see, where is that fence I'm trying to straddle?