This website serves as notice to Christians across this nation that President George Bush over the past few years has compromised his "Christian faith" by promoting evil and openly supporting wickedness. It is our hope and prayer that he would Repent and turn from such blatant sin. He is not our friend and cannot be trusted. This website is dedicated to providing up-to-date factual news information tracking the president's anti-Christian and ungodly behavior. We encourage you to pray for Mr. Bush. "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." Matthew 7:20

http://www.bushrevealed.com/

-- J. Fernandes (goananda@hotmail.com), January 30, 2004

Answers

You don't have much choice this year. You can vote for the murderers in the democratic party, or you can vote against them. The only alternative to make sure they don't put in even more anti- life laws and judges to uphold them, you must vote for Bush. Anyone saying to vote against Bush is really saying you should not vote against the murderers in the Democratic party.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 30, 2004.

Speaking of voting, I will probably do a write in for the Democratic Governor of Louisiana. Because she is the best of both worlds. A Democrat which means she can get the government back on track and she is pro-life. How awesome is that? I read somewhere that the pro-life and pro-family Dems are having problems with the party. I really wish that they would break away and form a pro-life, pro- family, Democratic party. Then pro-life people like myself, could actually have someone to vote for. And it might give the country a viable third party, something this country really needs.

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), January 30, 2004.

I'm no fan of the democrats either, but Bush is just plain evil. He cares about nothing other than money and power. The Democaratic candidate is the lesser of two evils. Four more years of Bush will turn America into a dictatorship.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), January 30, 2004.

Bill

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/12/afa/152003f.asp

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), January 30, 2004.

Anti-Bush, you are no longer welcome here, you have advocated the assasination of the President of the United States in another thread. That is murder, and to advocate such a thing is illegal in the United States. I don't know why you think you are still welcome here.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 31, 2004.

Kiwi,
This is not the time to get frustrated. Bush is getting anti- abortion judges onto the bench for the first time in decades (with no thanks to the Democrates I might add). The Republicans and this president also passed an anti late term abortion law. If you let the Democrates win this year the adding of anti-abortion judges will stop, the late term abortion law will be replaced with another pro- murder law and there will be a cease to any effort to stop any kind of abortion. The mass murder of millions of innocent children will continue.

The only thing stopping Bush putting more anti-abortion judges on the bench are the Democrates in the Senate. Get about 8-10 seats to switch to Republican seats and there will be nothing stopping this president from putting young anti-abortion judges on the bench who will stay there for 30 or so years! That is the real fear of the mass murdering abortionists.

I don't see how any Catholic can not vote Republican this year.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 31, 2004.

Scott,
If you do that, you will be throwing your vote away and someone who is pro-abortion will vote for the Democratic candidate. One more vote against our anti-abortion president. If everyone wrote in their favorite anti-abortion person, the Democrates are certain to win. Don't waste your vote, we need all the votes we can get! Vote Republican (they may not be perfect but they will stop the mass murder... or at least limit it a bit)

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 31, 2004.

Be wary my friends! Bush is no friend for Catholics. He is a man that supports abortion in cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother. That means he supports baby-killing some of the time, just not all of the time like others. That means: Catholics don't vote for him. He has to support the Catholic Church's position 100% to get that vote, otherwise we are voting for a man who supports sin. See how the situation unfolds. And arguments like, "Well, if I don't vote for him than so-and-so is going to get elected, and he support abortions is all cases!" That is called the Arnold Swartzenegger argument. No, my brethren, a lesser evil is still evil. Find a candidate that supports the position of the Church fully and he gets your vote. If you can't find him, then pray. That's not wasted. Chances are that if you are faithful to Christ your choices for cadidates will diminish in this country in the near future. Do you think St. Peter would have said if their were elections, "Well, Nero is our best choice this election. I mean, he really is helping the economy these days." We're Catholics! We don't care about parties or politics, we care about souls.

-- Sean (s22w22@yahoo.com), February 06, 2004.

Jmj

Sean, in case you think that you have shared pure facts with everyone, I need to let you know that you are mistaken. You have shared mostly opinions (plus at least one factual error), and no one needs to agree with your opinions. Let me analyze some of the things you wrote, because I have to oppose you in the strongest possible way -- for the sake of unborn babies and their expectant mothers:

1. "Bush is no friend for Catholics. He is a man that supports abortion in cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother."

Response: The fact that President Bush [kindly refer to him with respect] has a mental block on these exceptions is a bad thing, but it does not render him "no friend [of] Catholics." No way! In fact, there has never been a President who is more of a friend of Catholics -- except arguably Kennedy and Reagan. (And I hesitate to include Kennedy, despite his claiming to be Catholic, since he was a poor role model [womanizer] and said that he would have acted against his own religious beliefs in some hypothetical cases.) The president seeks out advice from notable Catholics -- having some in his cabinet and others for informal counsel (such as Deal Hudson and Linda Chavez -- 100% pro-life).

2. "That means [Pres. Bush] supports baby-killing some of the time, just not all of the time like others. That means: Catholics don't vote for him. He has to support the Catholic Church's position 100% to get that vote ..."

You are free to follow the option of not voting for him, but Catholics have no obligation to imitate you -- and I hope that none do, because it would guarantee an even MORE pro-death America, if everyone followed your example.

You are wrong to think that it is morally wrong to vote for Pres. Bush or other "imperfect" candidates. No pope or bishop has ever said such a thing as you have said. Moreover, Fr. Frank Pavone (head of "Priests for Life" and an official in a Vatican dicastery) has stated this: "[When faced with two candidates, neither of whom is perfect on the subject of abortion,] it is morally acceptable to vote for the candidate who will do less harm. ... [B]y your vote, you can keep the worse person out. And trying to do that is not only legitimate, but good."

Sean, I strongly recommend that you read Fr. Pavone's whole essay on this subject of voting -- and as much of the other things you have time to read at www.priestsforlife.org.

In a "Brief Catechism for Catholic Voters" at the EWTN Internet site, I found the following:

8. What if none of the candidates are completely pro-life?

As Pope John Paul II explains in his encyclical, 'Evangelium Vitae' (The Gospel of Life), "…when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects."
Logically, it follows from these words of the Pope that a voter may likewise vote for that candidate who will most likely limit the evils of abortion or any other moral evil at issue.

9. What if one leading candidate is anti-abortion except in the cases of rape or incest, another leading candidate is completely pro-abortion, and a trailing candidate, not likely to win, is completely anti-abortion. Would I be obliged to vote for the candidate not likely to win?

In such a case, the Catholic voter may clearly choose to vote for the candidate not likely to win. [Alternatively], the Catholic voter may assess that voting for that candidate might only benefit the completely pro-abortion candidate, and, precisely for the purpose of curtailing the evil of abortion, decide to vote for the leading candidate that is anti-abortion but not perfectly so. This decision would be in keeping with the words of the Pope quoted in question 8 above.

3. "Find a candidate that supports the position of the Church fully and he gets your vote. If you can't find him, then pray."

As I think Fr. Pavone would say, "If you can't find a candidate that supports Catholic morality fully, then, yes, pray .. but also vote for the one who will do the most good and the least harm to the babies and other innocent, defenseless people (like the elderly)." In fact, let's take a look at a statement that Fr. Pavone and several other respected, 100% pro-life, orthodox Catholic leaders published:

As Election Day draws near we are aware that some people are in a moral quandary and think that no candidate is worthy of their support. Some are even inclined not to vote at all. In our role as teachers of morality, we would like to clarify that while we can never choose between two evils, we can choose to do good to limit an evil. When one's choice of candidates who have a viable opportunity to win is limited to two unfavorable candidates, to choose to limit evil by voting for the better of the two is to choose a good. To vote for an imperfect candidate is not to endorse that candidate’s position on every issue. Nor is it to compromise our ultimate goal which is the protection of all pre-born children. We urge all citizens to fully participate in the political process and to use their vote to defend the most vulnerable in our society. By doing so we will move closer to that day when each and every human being is welcomed in life and protected in law.
Fr. Frank Pavone -- Director, Priests for Life
Fr. Peter West -- Associate, Priests for Life
Fr. Denis G. Wilde, O.S.A. -- Associate, Priests for Life
Fr. Walter Quinn, O.S.A. -- Associate, Priests for Life
Fr. Richard John Neuhaus -- President, Institute for Religion and Public Life ... Editor, "First Things"
Dr. William E. May -- Professor of Moral Theology, John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), February 06, 2004.

I have not yet seen an election where some candidate didn't have something wrong with him/her. So it is ALWAYS a "hold your nose and vote" sort of thing. Bush is not perfect, but I don't see any of the Democrats being any better.

We never seem to have a choice between "good" and "better", it is always a "bad" vs. "worse" choice.

In this case, sad to say, the Democrats are the worse choice.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), February 06, 2004.

There was once a time when States were governed by the philosophy of the Gospel. Then it was that the power and divine virtue of Christian wisdom had diffused itself throughout the laws, institutions, and morals of the people, permeating all ranks and relations of civil society.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 06, 2004.

moderator,

Why did you delete my response? are you ticked that I'm a bush supporter? or mad that I trashed on Jack Chick? no offense, but why did my post get taken out?

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), February 06, 2004.

There was once a time when States were governed by the philosophy of the Gospel. Then it was that the power and divine virtue of Christian wisdom had diffused itself throughout the laws, institutions, and morals of the people, permeating all ranks and relations of civil society.

That time can only come back by the will and action of the people. Simply sitting around griping about it is not going to make it happen.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 06, 2004.

"There was once a time when States were governed by the philosophy of the Gospel. Then it was that the power and divine virtue of Christian wisdom had diffused itself throughout the laws, institutions, and morals of the people, permeating all ranks and relations of civil society." --Pope Leo XIII in Immortale Dei, the encyclical on the Christian constitution of states.

"Simply sitting around griping about it is not going to make it happen."

I can't argue with that, because it's true, but I think things are so far corrupted that it will take an act of God to restore things; I do not believe men can do so by their own devices without His intervention.

But at least the gripe's legitimacy finds support in Leo XIII. =)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 06, 2004.

paul h, your post contained some discourteous comments. It had nothing to do with the topic.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), February 06, 2004.

Jmj

Ed and Paul H,
Ed, what just happened here has caused me some deep concern.

You admit that you deleted a post left by Paul H? You didn't just remove from it the words that you found offensive? You deleted it, even though I had not had a chance to read it? You deleted it, without informing Paul H of the deletion -- so that, if he had not come back to this thread, he would not have even known of the deletion?

Do you see what I am getting at? There are apparently some significant flaws in your technique. You must not have thought through some things upon becoming a moderator.

Come to think of it, Ed, none of us has any idea whose posts and how many posts you have deleted. (I know that Paul H has not been the only victim, since I have seen complaints posted by a few other people, and I vaguely recall noticing that something of my own was missing.) None of us knows why you have deleted something unless a deletion is noticed and you are asked about it. That being true, how can anyone know what he/she has to do to meet your standard of perfection?

Now that I think about it, Ed, no one knows what your standard is, except that it is obviously incredibly different from that of Paul M -- and the discrepancy makes the situation incredibly unfair to us. I always felt that Paul M was far too lenient, but, Ed, I'm beginning to get the impression that you are far too strict. I'm wondering if you even are imposing the unbelievable stringent criteria that were disastrously used by the previous moderator in January of 2003 -- the sort of standard by which men almost have to be effeminate in their speech to avoid being deleted, the standard that resulted in at least three regulars (myself included) leaving the forum until that moderator went inactive.

Ed, how can anyone live up to what you expect unless you explain it -- giving examples of the kinds of statements you will delete. There must be objective standards. If you publish standards and they prove not to be imperfect, you can always amend them. Without objective standards, every time a person posts, it's a big gamble. No one should have to live with that kind of uncertainty.

Ed, I think that any sensible person would tell you that, if a person posts a good message that happens to have an element or two to which you object, you cannot just take that person's hard work and flush it down the toilet. Such an act would be unjust, and I do not hesitate to call it sinful. You have to either (1) leave the post intact and ignore the imperfection, or (2) "clean it up" by removing what is genuinely objectionable, or (3) tell the poster to revise and re-post the message, so that you can delete the original. [The third option makes the most sense, because you are not forced to do the editing, and the other person is made aware of his/her error.]

When you think that a post is just so bad that it contains nothing worth saving -- and therefore must be deleted -- you need to inform the poster, so that he can decide to (1) argue his case against you, or (2) learn to avoid posting similarly in the future, or (3) decide to leave the forum.

Basically, Ed, I'm saying that a moderator needs to exercise common sense and justice. A moderator cannot just secretly lash out like some kind of wild dictator who is drunk with power -- deleting whatever and whenever he wishes. Please pray about this.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), February 07, 2004.

I can't argue with that, because it's true, but I think things are so far corrupted that it will take an act of God to restore things; I do not believe men can do so by their own devices without His intervention.

In Christ, all things are possible. Show some effort and be surprised! No one thought we would see the widespread end of communism in Eastern Europe.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 07, 2004.

ed,

first, my post said the website was about as useful a source of information on bush as jack chick's is on catholicism... ie-- its not.

Second, the website listed is full of half truths AND some outright lies. So, now, If youre going to delete my post because it "MIGHT" offend someone that i have no propensity for jack chick, then you should delete this whole thread because of the lies and "discourteous" comments listed in the reference webpage

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), February 07, 2004.

paul h, your comments about Jack Chick was not the problem. If you insist on ignoring my repeated requests to discuss this privately, I will have no alternative but to delete all your posts concerning my deletion in this thread. Please respect this topic.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), February 07, 2004.

John, I will address your comments in the "Forum Rules" thread.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), February 07, 2004.

100% of abortuses (aborted fetuses) go straight to Heaven. What percentage of the non-aborted go to Heaven?

While some may argue that abortion could have prevented the birth of Beethoven, it's reasonable to counter-argue that abortion could have prevented the birth of Hitler.

Birth control methods existed 2000 years ago, e.g., Phoenecian women used "the sponge", yet there is no example of the Christ forbidding it...

-- Logic_Wins (anon@anon.com), March 27, 2004.

Logic wins, your logic is flawed. The abortion makes those involved murderers, and hauls any advance the soul has, ndign all choice, which itsself is wrong.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 27, 2004.

Logic,

I think 100% of abortuses go to limbo, not heaven, since they are not baptized. I think they could be baptized immediately after they are aborted, but I doubt if there would be a priest right there to perform the ceremony. So theoretically, abortion could have prevented Hitler. So what. Hitler's mother could have smothered him with a pillow in his crib, but that would still make her a murderer. There is evidence of God forbidding abortion: it is called the 5th Commandment.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), March 30, 2004.

here is some logic to counter the abortion could have taken out hitler arguement...

Hitler killed an estimated 6 million jews.

He killed an estimated 2 million more in gypsies, homosexuals, transients, Catholics, and more.

An estimated 6 million soldiers died in the campaigns against germany (although that number might be off)

TOTAL: altogether, WWII on hittlers part cost 14 million lives (estimated).

In the united states ALONE since the Roe v Wade decision, more than 43 MILLION babies have been murdered by the process known as abortion, and that doesnt even account for the worlds other countries. so tell me, which holocaust do you prefer?

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), March 30, 2004.