Click or Tap Icons to Share! Thank you!

Authored By  :
Published On :
Last Updated :

NOTE: This article or series has not been updated recently. As such, it may possibly contain some outdated information, and/or ideas and beliefs which I no longer embrace, or which have changed to some degree.



Ironically, while millions of Americans across the land are
financially challenged and just struggling to survive, George
W. Bush has approved tax breaks which will only benefit the
extremely rich. At the same time, the U.S. Government spends
billions of dollars annually on its foreign war efforts, and
billions more in the form of annual bribes, in order to keep
certain countries under the American sphere of influence. So
we must ask ourselves "What about the people at home? Where
do they come into the picture?" The Bible plainly teaches us:

"But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those
of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse
than an infidel."
1 Timothy 5:8, KJV

This Biblical principle applies on a national level as well.
By taking care of his rich friends through tax breaks, and
wasting billions of dollars on foreign wars, and supporting
foreign governments through billions of dollars spent in
annual bribes, while at the same time ignoring and denying
the needs of the American people, and in fact, making their
situation worse, is it possible that Bush and his cronies
are infidels, according to the Biblical definition?

As I mentioned earlier, many conservative Christians voted
for George W. Bush because of his position regarding three
key issues which are of importance to us Christians. These
issues are abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and the
gay and lesbian agenda. So the big question in my mind is
this: If you voted for Bush, did your investment pay off?
Do you honestly believe that your vote during the last two
elections really counted for something? Did your vote make a
substantial difference, particularly in light of all of the
negative things which have occurred during the past eight
years? In other words, do you believe that the good done by
the Bush Administration has outweighed the bad? Well, let's
examine these three areas, and then you decide.

George W. Bush has had eight full years to put an end to Roe
v. Wade, (legally known as 410 U.S. 113), the 1973 US Supreme
Court ruling that legalized abortion by overturning all state
and federal laws that outlawed or restricted abortion, based
upon its holding. While the Federal Government has not been
successful at totally nullifying Roe v. Wade, some successes
towards this goal during the Bush Administration are worthy
of note. In fact, it is evident that the Conservative Right
has chosen to take a steady, incremental approach in order
to eventually defeat the Roe v. Wade ruling.

For example, George Bush's appointment of some conservative
judges to the US Supreme Court has undoubtedly had a direct
effect on the legal status of abortion in the USA. In one of
its more recent decisions, in April of 2007, by a vote of 5
to 4, the Supreme Court put its weight behind and upheld the
highly controversial Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. As you
may recall, this bill was passed by the U.S. Congress, and
signed into law by President Bush in November of 2003. This
important piece of legislation makes it a crime for doctors
to perform any "overt act" to "kill the partially delivered
living fetus". Those who violate this law may face criminal
prosecution, fines and up to two years in prison. It is
important to note that President Bill Clinton vetoed this
same law twice during his term in office.

In addition to his controversial Supreme Court appointments,
during his tenure as president, George W. Bush has appointed
sixty-one conservative-leaning judges to the federal appeals
courts. This court system is comprised of thirteen circuits,
of which ten are controlled by Republican-appointed judges,
according to an October 2008 article in the New York Times.
During his term in office, President Bill Clinton appointed
sixty-five judges to the federal appeals courts. It has been
estimated that the number of federal judges appointed by the
Republican Party, most of them conservative, will have risen
about twelve per cent, from fifty per cent to sixty-two per
cent, since George W. Bush first took office. The movement
to advance a "conservative legal revolution" actually began
during the Reagan Administration.

Just over two years ago in 2006, the Child Custody Protection
Act, (a.k.a. the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act),
was amended to title 18 of the Federal Criminal Code; or the
United States Code, as it is also known. This bill makes it
a crime for a doctor to perform or to induce an abortion on
an out-of-state minor in violation of parental notification
requirements. The act also requires that a physician give a
twenty-four hour actual or constructive notice to a parent
of the minor seeking an abortion. Violators of this act are
subject to a fine, and could spend up to a year behind bars
as well. However, as passed, this bill does allow for an
exception if:

1) the physician complies with parental notification
requirements in the physician’s state;

2) the physician is given documentation that a court in the
minor’s state of residence has waived parental notification
or otherwise authorized the minor’s abortion;

3) the minor provides a written statement that she is the
victim of sexual abuse, neglect, or physical abuse by a
parent and the physician notifies appropriate state
officials of such abuse;

4) the abortion is necessary to save the life of the minor
(written notice must be given to the minor's parent within
24 hours after the lifesaving abortion is performed): or

5) a person accompanying the minor provides documentation to
the physician that such person is the parent of the minor.

As you can see, this act is not bullet-proof, and does allow
for legal loopholes. But there is more. While these two acts
do make it more difficult for a minor to obtain an abortion,
they don't make it entirely impossible for them to do so. The
reason for this is simple; and that is because abortion laws
differ from state to state. At this current time, there are
forty-four states that have abortion laws which require that
a minor's parents be involved in the decision-making process.
However, the level of parental involvement varies. The level
of parental involvement can be broken down as follows:

a. In twelve states, a minor can obtain an abortion
without parental consent; however, she is required to
notify at least one of her parents ahead of time
regarding her decision. The one exception is the state
of Minnesota, where both parents are required to be
notified of the girl's decision to have an abortion.

b. In twenty-three states, a minor cannot obtain an
abortion unless she first acquires parental consent from
one parent. The exception to this are, I believe,
Mississippi, North Dakota and Texas, where the consent
of both parents is required before an abortion can be
granted to a minor.

c. In two states, Oklahoma and Utah, parental consent
and parental notification must both be provided before
an abortion can be performed on a minor.

d. In nine states, the situation is rather nebulous, as
parental involvement laws have either been blocked by a
particular court order, or else they are simply not being
properly enforced.

e. Tragically, there are six states where there are no
laws concerning parental involvement. These are Vermont,
Connecticut, New York, Washington, Oregon, and Hawaii.
Also included in this group is the District of Columbia.

As if the situation isn't already loose enough, as we saw a
moment ago, in some situations, the Child Custody Protection
Act does allow judges to issue court orders which permit a
girl to obtain an abortion even without her parents' consent.
For example, in the state of West Virginia, a physician who
can demonstrate that he/she has no financial attachments to
the abortion provider, can perform an abortion on a minor.
There are likewise some states where it is acceptable for
grandparents, or other family members, to be involved in a
minor's choice to have an abortion, instead of the parents.

While the state of Mississippi has very strict anti-abortion
laws, so that only one abortion clinic has managed to survive
there, (at least legally), it is obviously not the only state
where the abortion war is being waged. In March of 2006, two-
term Governor Michael Rounds of South Dakota signed into law
a bill which made it a felony to perform an abortion, unless
it could be proved that it was absolutely necessary in order
to save a woman's life. The general consensus in both camps
was that the purpose of the South Dakota law was to challenge
Roe v. Wade head-on. As was expected, abortion proponents went
on the attack, and the law was ultimately repealed by a voter
referendum in November of that same year. However, the battle
is not over there just yet. On November 4, 2008, voters will
have an opportunity to accept or reject a new amendment which
would ban abortion except in the case of rape, incest or when
there is a serious health threat to the mother.

While I have used the phrase "abortion proponents", at this
point in our discussion, it would be good to identify some
of the people and organizations which have publicly come out
in favor of abortion, and have defended it to some degree.
These include, but are not limited to the following:

American Civil Liberties Union
Center for Reproductive Rights
Former President William Jefferson Clinton
Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor
Former Vice President Al Gore
Guttmacher Institute (former division of Planned Parenthood)
Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, Democrat of California
Naral Pro-Choice America
National Organization for Women
Planned Parenthood Federation of America
President-elect Barack Hussein Obama
Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California
Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy
Supreme Court Justice David Souter
Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer
Vice President-elect Joseph Biden

One comment I came across while conducting research for this
series, which I found rather disturbing, was made by Doctor
Vanessa Cullins, who currently serves as vice president for
medical affairs for Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
In a statement, this woman made a remark regarding how, in
her opinion, "draconian parental notification laws endanger
the health of young women".

Are we then to simply trust that young teenaged girls, who
are obviously already under stress due to their situation,
and still minors, actually have the wisdom, as well as the
maturity, that's needed to make such an important decision
on their own, without any input whatsoever from their wiser
parents? I think not. Obviously, some of these minor girls
are fearful that their mistake will be discovered; and then
not only will they suffer embarrassment, but they'll have to
face their parents' disappointment and anger as well. But,
in many cases, while the parents may not approve of what the
child has done by getting pregnant, they will offer the girl
the comfort, understanding and support that she will need at
such a time, and they will encourage the girl to keep the
child, even if it is only to offer it up for adoption later
on. Isn't this better than murderous abortion? I think so.

The problem is that some of these abortionists don't want to
allow this to happen. These unscrupulous baby killers know
how vulnerable a young pregnant girl can be; and they also
realize that the minor may not go through with the abortion,
(meaning the abortion clinic will lose money), if the child
has any opportunity to consult with her parents first. Thus,
it seems to me that their goal is to break the parental bond
when it comes to the all important issue of abortion. They
want to isolate the child, and in fact replace the parents,
and substitute their opinion, for the parents' opinion. Of
course, they will comfort the girl prior to the abortion; but
once the deed has been done, it's done, and it most certainly
cannot be reversed; and the child will have the rest of her
life to regret her decision, while the abortion clinic goes
on its merry way, and continues to turn a profit.

I am reminded of another cold-hearted statement from a case
which made the news towards the end of 2002. It involved one
gynecologist/abortionist in the state of New Jersey by the
name of Sheldon Turkish, and a woman named Rosa Acuna. News
reports state that Ms. Acuna sued the abortionist, because
at the time of her abortion in 1996, he failed to inform her
that aborting a baby in the first trimester was in reality
terminating the life of a human being. According to Acuna,
when she asked Turkish whether or not a baby was already in
her womb, he responded that it was "nothing but some blood."
This deceptive abortionist in fact admitted in depositions,
that he informs pregnant women that there is "nothing but
some tissue". Sadly, this is the attitude of many of these
cold-blooded, licensed killers. Thankfully, this is not how
God views a fetus or an embryo. He sees us as real, living
human beings, even before we are conceived or born. As I've
pointed out before, in Psalm 139, we find the following
enlightening verse:

"Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and
in thy book all my members were written, which in
continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of
them."
Psalm 139:16, KJV

In conclusion, in spite of President Bush's personal position
regarding abortion, and despite the fact that he succeeded in
appointing conservative-leaning judges to the Supreme Court,
as well as to many courts of appeal, legalized abortion still
remains the law of the land, and surely, this is to our shame.
Furthermore, to this day, a woman retains full control over
her body when it comes to the issue of abortion. Under normal
conditions, neither her spouse, boyfriend, or anyone else,
can override her personal decision to obtain an abortion.

To make matters worse, we now have sex education occurring
in the American public school system, when this is something
which should be taught at home. To add insult to injury, it
is also now common practice for some schools to make condoms
available to their students. In my view, this practice only
adds to the problem of sexual promiscuity, which in itself
increases the opportunity for abortions to occur.

Sadly, this is not all. As a result of the current status of
abortion laws in some states, a teenaged pregnant girl can
now receive counseling at school, without her parents even
being notified about it. Abortion supporters claim that this
is a privacy issue, even though the girl is still a minor,
and her parents are legally responsible for her. As we saw
earlier, in some states, a pregnant minor can not only get
counseling regarding her pregnancy, but she can proceed to
have an abortion without her parents' consent, or without
their being notified, or without both. I find it rather odd
that this same minor is not old enough to vote, and yet she
is deemed wise enough to make a decision regarding abortion,
which will terminate the life of another human being. Surely,
this is the epitome of hypocrisy and madness.

While some of these developments did not begin during the
Bush years, they have been further advanced during the Bush
Administration, in spite of all that Bush has said and done.
The question then is this: Do you personally believe that
George W. Bush did all that he could possibly do insofar as
the abortion issue is concerned, during his eight years in
office? Or do you think that Bush allowed politics to get in
the way and that he could have done more? Should Roe v. Wade
have been overturned after eight years of Republican rule?

Let's move on to the next issue. Publicly, George W. Bush
has stated that he views marriage as a sacred union between
a man and a woman. In his 2004 State of the Union address,
Mr. Bush said the following regarding judges who were going
against the conservative grain, and proceeding to rule in
favor of legalizing gay and lesbian "marriages":

----- Begin Quote -----

". . . if judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon
the people, the only alternative left to the people would be
the constitutional process."

----- End Quote -----

Several weeks later, in February of 2004, President George
W. Bush reiterated his position regarding the gay and
lesbian "marriage" issue, with the following statement:

----- Begin Quote -----

"Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a
woman . . . If activist judges insist on re-defining
marriage by court order, the only alternative will be the
constitutional process. We must do what is legally necessary
to defend the sanctity of marriage."

----- End Quote -----

Based on statements like the previous ones, many Christians
voted for George W. Bush, not once, but twice, believing that
the president would do his best to protect this God-ordained,
and God-blessed institution. As we read in the very first book
of the Bible, Genesis:

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God
created he him; male and female created he them. And God
blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and
multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have
dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the
air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the
earth."
Genesis 1:27-28, KJV

"And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of
my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken
out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his
mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be
one flesh."
Genesis 2:23-24, KJV

Sadly, it has become evident to many Christians, that in the
past eight years during Bush's tenure as president, the gay
and lesbian activists have not only grown much stronger, and
more organized, and more vocal with their demands, but they
have also obtained their most significant victories to date.
As you will undoubtedly already realize, I am referring to
the tragic fact that three states, (California, Connecticut,
and Massachusetts), have now legalized gay "marriages"; and
I have no doubt that other states will follow suit in coming
months and years, motivated in large part by the financial
incentive that is provided by legalizing gay "marriages".

The battle between the Conservative Right and the Liberal
Left is currently at a high pitch. As I write these words,
in less than twenty-four hours, voters in three US states,
California, Florida and Arizona, will hold referendums, in
order to determine whether or not amendments will be added
to their state constitutions, in order to ban these gay and
lesbian "marriages". While we can all hope for the best, as
a realist, and one who studies God's Word, I sense that a
dark, evil tide is slowly rolling over the American land;
and soon, many more cities and states will be engulfed by
it, to the chagrin of conservative, God-fearing people.

While they blatantly deny it, the supporters and promoters
of the gay and lesbian agenda are indeed radicals. While
they claim that they just wish to be left alone in order to
live their lives as they please, this is the furthest thing
from the truth. It is an undeniable fact that these people
have been making concerted efforts to see to it that their
sinful lifestyle is accepted by American society at large.
This is evidenced by the fact that this social disease has
now spread to not only American television networks, as well
as to the movie industry, and to the music industry, and is
on display in public "gay pride" parades, but sadly, it has
also found its way into the American public school system.

In case you have not yet been made aware of this development,
in some states, young elementary school children can now find
books in their library, which try to teach them that gay and
lesbian relationships are another alternative and acceptable
lifestyle. These damnable books teach young, impressionable
children, who obviously have very little wisdom and spiritual
discernment, that while some families have one mommy and one
daddy, others have two mommies or two daddies; and according
to the authors of these books, this is perfectly fine. As a
Christian parent, it should absolutely anger you that these
gay and lesbian radicals have the audacity to target the most
vulnerable members of American society.

If you are a Christian parent, and if you discover that your
child's school offers these kind of books to their students,
I hope that you will demonstrate Christian courage, and take
the steps that are necessary in order to reverse this awful
trend. As the Apostle Jude wrote, we must be willing to stand
up for, or contend, for our Christian faith:

"Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the
common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you,
and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the
faith which was once delivered unto the saints."
Jude 1:3, KJV

The sad thing about this current situation, is that it could
have been halted years ago. It is a matter of public record,
that when the Senate was in a position, not once, but twice,
to put an abrupt end to the legalization of gay and lesbian
"marriages", it failed to do so. In 2004, when the proposed
amendment came before the US Senate, it failed to pass by a
slim margin of 48 to 50. Two years later, in 2006, a similar
amendment failed to pass in the Senate by a vote of 49 to 48.
They weren't even able to obtain a bare majority on such an
important issue. What you may find interesting regarding the
latter of the two votes, is that John McCain was one of the
seven Senators who failed to support the gay "marriage" ban
amendment. At that time, the Washington Post, among other
American news outlets, reported the following:

----- Begin Quote -----

A constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, backed
by President Bush and conservative groups, was soundly
defeated in the Senate yesterday after proponents failed to
persuade a bare majority of all senators to support the
measure.

Although most states have acted to prevent same-sex partners
from marrying, seven Senate Republicans were wary of wading
into the politically risky issue and voted against bringing
the proposed amendment to a final vote.

But Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who opposed the measure,
said: "Most Americans are not yet convinced that their
elected representatives or the judiciary are likely to
expand decisively the definition of marriage to include
same-sex couples."

----- End Quote -----

As I commented to our mailing list members at the time, in
my view, the failure to pass this amendment exposed the soft-
bellied, career politicians who run Washington, DC. They are
more interested in keeping their high-paying jobs, than they
are in standing up for what is true and right in the eyes of
God. They bowed to political correctness. As to John McCain,
he was obviously dead wrong. I wonder what he has to say for
himself, now that three states have legalized these ungodly
relationships. Perhaps John McCain isn't as conservative as
you think he is, and is just playing for your vote.

So, when all is said and done, despite his personal stance
concerning the gay and lesbian agenda, and in spite of his
efforts to expand the influence of the conservative base via
the judiciary system, George W. Bush hasn't really been all
that effective at slowing down or stopping this ungodly tide.
We Christians have lost some serious ground when it comes to
the issue of legalized gay and lesbian "marriages". We've all
watched and waited for these two scourges, (abortion and gay
"marriages"), to be eliminated for the past eight years, but
it simply has not happened. So again, the question arises:
Do you honestly feel that George W. Bush delivered on your
expectations of him? Did he make your vote really count? Or
do you feel that you were duped again by yet another shrewd
political fast-talker who knew how to yank your strings, in
order to obtain your vote?

The third key issue which was used to garner the support of
the Christian voting bloc, was embryonic stem cell research.
As you may recall, early on, George W. Bush publicly stated
that he was strongly opposed to the practice of artificially
developing embryos, for the purpose of extracting their stem
cells for medical research. As you should already know, this
immoral, unethical practice results in the immediate death of
the days-old embryos, which are the beginnings of new human
life. However, after he won the 2000 election, Bush began to
soften in his position by August of 2001. At that time, Bush
reached a compromise, whereby he didn't totally put an end to
embryonic stem cell research, but rather, he placed serious
limitations on the embryonic stem cell lines which were still
available at the time. He also refused to make Federal funds
available for the continuation of said research. A New York
Times article from the first week of September of 2001, (just
a week prior to 9/11), reveals how Mr. Bush had already begun
to weaken in his position, which came as a big surprise, and
disappointment, to many conservative thinkers:

----- Begin Quote -----

Mr. Bush struck a careful compromise that he said would
encourage potentially lifesaving research but discourage
experiments on human embryos, which are destroyed in stem
cell experiments. He confined public financing to work on
those stem cell colonies, or lines, created before 9 p.m. on
Aug. 9 — the moment he announced his decision to the nation
in a televised speech.

For his part, Mr. Bush is determined not to let his delicate
stem cell compromise unravel. He has vowed to veto any
legislation that goes beyond the parameters he specified.

That the discussion is occurring at all, however, reflects
how much the public discourse on embryonic stem cell
research has changed in a short time. Lawmakers, patients,
scientists and bioethicists all say they are struck by how
far Mr. Bush has moved the debate.

"By virtue of his speech, President Bush has fundamentally
declared that it is ethical not only to do this research but
to fund this research," said R. Alta Charo, a professor of
law and medicine at the University of Wisconsin. "So the
debate has shifted from whether the research is ethical to a
debate about how to go about it. That is a profound shift."

Opponents of stem cell studies are deeply troubled by this
shift, but they say it seems inevitable that the federal
government will pay for some stem cell research.

Mr. Bush's decision has no effect on research in the private
sector. The real issue, said Harold E. Varmus, president of
Memorial Sloan- Kettering Cancer Center and a former
director of the National Institutes of Health, is not the
quality or number of lines, but the fact that scientists
cannot use federal money to study new ones that will be
developed with private money.

----- End Quote -----


⇒ Go To The Next Part . . .

Click or Tap Icons to Share! Thank you!

---

---

Please avail yourself of other areas of the Bill's Bible Basics website. There are many treasures for you to discover.