Letter to George Bush

[ap0stle]

****a copy of my letter sent to Mr Bush*****
which I have also sent to many newspapers, asking them to publish this letter so that the world may know what I am doing

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr Bush

What are you doing in the House of God that brings destruction on my children whom I have created with my own hands?

Have I, your Lord and Saviour, commanded you to do these abominable things in Iraq?

Do you still not understand the truth I gave to my Son who has declared to the whole world that ‘God is Love’? Does not the cross mean anything to you, anymore?

Now I burn with anger against you for what you have done in my House as I have done against all those who have not put their trust in Me but have taken the law into their own hands and have committed murder in My Name. It is these who stand before Me now, condemned and without mercy as my Son declared:

“Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out – those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned. By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me”

That time has come. And judgment begins with the House of God.

And I, who sent My Son to save the world, give every person in the world the opportunity to receive forgiveness for their sins but you, George, are responsible for robbing men, women and children of their right to become My sons and daughters. I am the living God you claim to worship, who came to you and removed the evil from within your heart when you accepted My gift of eternal life that I gave you in Christ Jesus my Son. Why do you then continue to commit yourself and your nation to acts of lawlessness in the name of My Son who has declared to the world my Love for My creation? Do you not know, after all these long times, who the lawless one is?

“As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it. There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words, that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day”

As the last day approaches, the time when all that I have spoken will come to pass as I have promised, when the last sheep has entered the fold, I will close the door. Only my words will remain. Salvation I have offered equally to all and those, like you George, who have heard my voice and who have rejected my love and my salvation, will have no hope on that day when the door is finally and firmly closed. This is the truth I have given you and if you hate the one who brings you the truth, that is, My Son, you blaspheme the Holy Spirit who has brought this truth to you.

Do not say to yourself, ‘Ah, God will have mercy on me’ and do not think that on the last day I will raise up evil doers like you to share in the Kingdom that has been prepared since the foundation of the world for those who have shared in My Son’s sufferings. I tell you the truth, the only opportunity you have for mercy is now, before I come and close the door, not after.

You must repent now. You and all of you who have entertained murder in your hearts.

Repent, and purify your heart. Let the blood of my Son cleanse you from all unrighteousness so that you will be acceptable as a pure Bride on the Day your Bridegroom returns, which is now happening.

 

[Green Gaia]

I like this letter better... written by a concerned, law-abiding citizen, not someone pretending to be God.


Dear President Bush,

Today you called upon Congress to move quickly to amend the US Constitution, and set in Federal stone a legal definition of marriage. I would like to know why.

In your speech, you stated that this Amendment would serve to protect marriage in America, which I must confess confuses me. Like you, I believe in the importance of marriage and I feel that we as a society take the institution far too lightly. In my circle of family, friends and acquaintances, the vast majority have married and divorced - some more than once. Still, I believe in marriage. I believe that there is something fundamental about finding another person on this planet with whom you want to build a life and family, and make a positive contribution to society. I believe that we need more positive role models for successful marriage in this country - something to counteract the images we get bombarded with in popular culture. When we are assaulted with images of celebrities of varying genres, be it actors, sports figures, socialites, or even politicians who shrug marriage on and off like the latest fashion, it is vitally important to the face of our nation, for our children and our future, that we have a balance of commitment and fidelity with which to stave off the negativity. I search for these examples to show my own daughter, so that she can see that marriage is more than a disposable whim, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

As a father, I'm sure you have faced these same concerns and difficulties in raising your own daughters. Therefore I can also imagine that you must understand how thrilled I have been over the past few weeks to come home and turn on the news with my family. To finally have concrete examples of true commitment, honest love, and steadfast fidelity was such a relief and a joy. Instead of speaking in the hypothetical, I was finally able to point to these men and women, standing together for hours in the pouring rain, and tell my child that this is what its all about. Forget Britney. Forget Kobe. Forget Strom. Forget about all the people that we know who have taken so frivolously the pure and simple beauty of love and tarnished it so consistently. Look instead at the joy in the beautiful faces of Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon - 51 years together! I mean, honestly Mr. President - how many couples do you know who are together for 51 years? I'm sure you agree that this love story provides a wonderful opportunity to teach our children about the true meaning and value of marriage. On the steps of San Francisco City Hall, rose petals and champagne, suits and veils, horns honking and elation in the streets; a celebration of love the likes of which this society has never seen.

This morning, however, my joy turned to sadness, my relief transformed into outrage, and my peace became anger. This morning, I watched you stand before this nation and belittle these women, the thousands who stood with them, and the countless millions who wish to follow them. How could you do that, Mr. President? How could you take something so beautiful - a clear and defining example of the true nature of commitment - and declare it to be anything less? What is it that validates your marriage which somehow doesn't apply to Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon? By what power, what authority are you so divinely imbued that you can stand before me and this nation and hold their love to a higher standard?

Don't speak to me about homosexuality, Mr. President. Don't tell me that the difference lies in the bedroom. I would never presume to ask you or your wife how it is you choose to physically express your love for one another, and I defy you to stand before Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon and ask them to do the same. It is none of my business, as it is none of yours, and it has nothing to do with the "sanctity of marriage". I'm sure you would agree that marriage is far more than sexual expression, and its high time we all started focusing on all the other aspects of a relationship which hold it together over the course of a lifetime. Therefore, with the mechanics of sex set aside, I ask you again - what makes a marriage? I firmly believe that whatever definition you derive, there are thousands upon thousands of shining examples for you to embrace.

You want to protect marriage. I admire and support that, Mr. President. Together, as a nation, let us find and celebrate examples of what a marriage should be. Together, let us take couples who embody the principles of commitment, fidelity, sacrifice and love, and hold them up before our children as role models for their own futures. Together, let us reinforce the concept that love is about far more than sex, despite what popular culture would like them to believe.

Please, for the sake of our children, for the sake of our society, for the sake of our future, do not take us down this road. Under the guise of protection, do not support divisiveness. Under the guise of unity, do not endorse discrimination. Under the guise of sanctity, do not devalue commitment. Under the guise of democracy, do not encourage this amendment.

written on 24 Feb 2004

Taken by permission from: http://www.livejournal.com/users/sleepysaj/2004/02/24/

 

[Hirohito18200]

No offense guys but.....

I think this is straying too far from the central focus of these forums, religion. I understand that you guys are free to express your views and all, but is this really the place to do it? If you could some how tie this into a religious debate, I wouldn't see a problem with that but all privious posts in this topic have been unrelated except for their common theme or criticising someone's political affiliation.

I fear that if purely political discussion persists on these forums, we will lose standing as a reputable place for religious discussion and debate. We will descend do the level of political criticism, and that is not a place that I, for one, want to see us go.

My two cents

 

[Runt]

I think this is straying too far from the central focus of these forums, religion.

This is the Off-Topic forum. Political discussion, or any other non-religious post is a-okay here. In fact, if anything remotely "religious" were brought up here, I (or any other moderator) would move it to the appropriate religious forum. *shrug*

 

[Green Gaia]

Actually ap0stle has posted this in another forum and Rex moved it here. Anything that is not offensive or vulgar, or obvious spam can go in the Off-Topic forum. If you don't want to talk politics and just want to discuss religious issues, then don't read the Off-Topic forum.

My two cents. :mrgreen:

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Hey apostle---

How many letters did you send Saddam about all the Kurds he gassed? Just curious.

 

[Colin_Admin]

Bush Humor

The President gets off the helicopter in front of the White House, carrying a
baby pig under each arm.
The Marine guard snaps to attention, salutes, and says, "Nice pigs, sir."
The President replies: "These are not pigs, these are authentic Texan
Razorback Hogs. I got one for VP Cheney, and I got one for Defense Secretary
Rumsfeld ."
The Marine again snaps to attention, salutes, and replies, "Nice trade,
sir."

 

[Runt]

lol

More Bush humor (from http://www.bushcartoon.com/bushisms.html)

"The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein, and his willingness to terrorize himself." - Grand Rapids, Mich., Jan. 29, 2003

"There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, it's probably in Tennessee --that says, fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. Fool me ... You can't get fooled again." - G.W. Bush quoted by the Baltimore Sun - Oct 6, 2002

"I know in the fall of an election year, the tendency is to focus more on scoring political points than on making progress." - G.W. Bush after a golf game with Bush Sr. and just before going on a massive, multi-state, GOP fundraising campaign. Kennebunkport, Maine. -August 3rd, 2002

"Do you have blacks too?" - Bush ignorantly asked Brazil's President Fernando Henrique Cardoso. Reported by the reputable German publication Der Spiegel. Rumor has it, Condoleza Rice interupted the president and explained in brief the African history in Brazil.

"And so, in my State of the -- my State of the Union -- or state -- my speech to the nation, whatever you want to call it, speech to the nation -- I asked Americans to give 4,000 years --4,000 hours over the next -- the rest of your life -- of service to America."" - G.W. Bush. April 9th, 2002. Reported by the San Francisco Gate (among others)

"There's nothing more deep than recognizing Israel's right to exist. That's the most deep thought of all. ... I can't think of anything more deep than that right."-March 13th, 2000, Washington, D.C.

"Mother, I should have listened to you. Always chew your pretzels before you swallow." —January 14th, 2002

''I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe and what I believe—I believe what I believe is right."—Rome, July 22, 2001

"It's my honor to speak to you as the leader of your country. And the great thing about America is you don't have to listen unless you want to." — Speaking to recently sworn in immigrants on Ellis Island, July 10, 2001

"Well, it's an unimaginable honor to be the president during the Fourth of July of this country. It means what these words say, for starters. The great inalienable rights of our country. We're blessed with such values in America. And I--it's--I'm a proud man to be the nation based upon such wonderful values."—Visiting the Jefferson Memorial, Washington, D.C., July 2, 2001

''I had no idea we had so many weapons, ...what do we need them for?'' — George W. Bush, stunned when told the extent of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, Newsweek, June 25, 2001

"For every fatal shooting, there were roughly three non-fatal shootings. And, folks, this is unacceptable in America. It's just unacceptable. And we're going to do something about it."—Philadelphia, May 14, 2001

"There's no question that the minute I got elected, the storm clouds on the horizon were getting nearly directly overhead." - Washington, D.C., May 11, 2001

"I've coined new words, like, misunderstanding and Hispanically." —George W. Bush, who meant to say "misunderestimated"

"I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family."—Greater Nashua, N.H., Chamber of Commerce, Jan. 27, 2000

"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully."-Saginaw, Mich., Sept. 29, 2000

"Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?"-Florence, S.C., Jan. 11, 2000

"The most important job is not to be governor, or first lady in my case."-Pella, Iowa, as quoted by the San Antonio Express-News, Jan. 30, 2000

"I think if you know what you believe, it makes it a lot easier to answer questions. I can't answer your question."—Reynoldsburg, Ohio, Oct. 4, 2000

 

[Alaric]

I love this one:
"After all, a week ago, there were - Yasser Arafat was boarded up in his building in Ramallah, a building full of, evidently, German peace protesters and all kinds of people. They're now out. He's now free to show leadership, to lead the world."

 

[Mr Spinkles]

*SIGH* unfortunately my boy Bush isn't the most eloquent public speaker. Still....four more years! Four more years!

 

[Alaric]

Wow, are you serious? But... he's so totally incompetent! You can just see it in his eyes when he's answering questions, his frustration at complexity, his eyes flicking over imaginary scripts as he tries to think of what the people want to hear... I don't want to dissaude you from answering, but if only you knew how little respect that man gets over here... I sincerely can't see why anyone could possibly admire him. I mean, even if I agreed with his party's views (and by European standards I am right-wing), the man himself... he's like a freaking used car salesman! Well, so was Clinton I guess, but at least he knew what he was doing. Sorry for the rant, but I have never met a Bush-fan in the flesh and the only online ones have been either religious nuts or foaming-at-the-mouth anarcho-capitalists with itchy trigger-fingers. It's nice to let off some steam. :mrgreen:

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Well I can assure you I am none of the above....I think guns are bad, mmkay?

When I see Bush's (normally) terrible speech-making abilities, I see the opposite of glib; I see the opposite of a car salesman. I see a man who is honest and sincere, and focuses more on his job than how he interacts with the media. This is not smart of him politically, because politicians are supposed to be glib, and they're supposed to suck up to the media and to the public to get votes.

Bush doesn't do this...his main concern is his domestic and foreign agenda (which I agree with) not in catering to voters/the media. That's how he's different from a lot of other politicians.

I judge his competence not on his charisma or speech-making abilities (which were Clinton's strengths) but on his performance as a president. I personally think he's performed well (the American pilots held hostage by China, 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, and no big scandals in his first term), camera shy or not.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Beleive me Alaric, I'm aware of how little respect Bush gets in Europe as well as here in Yankville.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Hey apostle---

How many letters did you send Saddam about all the Kurds he gassed? Just curious.

 

[Runt]

I think Bush is not as stupid as he allows us to think he is... and much more "media minded" than we believe.

Consider:

In the 70's Bush ran for Congress as an ivy league intellectual and got destroyed by a plainspoken Texan. I think from that defeat he learned what kind of person would appeal to the masses and played himself up as a similar personality during the presidential election.

No, I don't think he's very bright... but I don't think he's as stupid as we paint him to be. I think he is not too incredibly articulate... but I think the media has a tendency to pull these funny bushisms out of context and make them seem "dumber" than they really are.

I don't think he's so much a stupid man as a dangerous one.

 

[Alaric]

Spinkles, that's very interesting - I see him in the opposite light. He's isn't bad at public speaking, he's bad at pretending he knows or cares what he's talking about. I see a man who only cares about glory of himself, his family and his party. Nothing he says is honest - it's always it that corny B-movie language that shows he's just pandering to the lowest common denominators, with the crooked smile and body language - it's all about giving off an impression, not convincing people with his views, just telling people what they want to hear, then moving on. If he had any patience at all for learning more than the most superficial facts about something, he would be able to answer reporters' questions, and he wouldn't screw up his statements. Everybody is articulate when they know what they're talking about. You can just see him privately joking about 'lefties' just before he walks into the press conference to ask for bipartisanship, and I'll bet his only worry about new policy initiatives is whether they sound right to the right people. At first I hated him for starting off his campaign at the Bob Jones University, but of course, he doesn't care about racism or religious divisiveness, he only cares about looking good to the religious right - so when people complained, he probably got angry at his people for not judging it better. He has absolutely no passion for anything, he operates solely on people's facial expressions.

Imagine if he had to defend himself each week in a setting like the British Parliament, where he was forced to be able to defend his actions convincingly, on the spot, in front of sarcastic members of the opposition - he would fall flat on his face. I bet he would be the absolute worst internet forum debater - he'd be the guy that would write everything with emoticons!

 

[Runt]

:clap:

:goodjob:

:lol:

:mrgreen:

 

[Mr Spinkles]

In the people who speculate about how Bush is really a nasty person, I see the same traits as I saw in the people who speculated that Clinton was a nasty person. It's a brew of bitterness (many people are still mad Bush won in 2000) mixed with an opposing view with some intense loathing stirred in. The Bush bashers, in my opinion, aren't any better than the Clinton bashers were--they both have already made up their minds whether they like the President or not, and the fact is NOTHING Bush (or Clinton) does will make them think otherwise.

I judge a president on his actions. I agree with what Bush has done in foreign policy. I think the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan will prove to be a huge step forward for the free world in the long term as democracies grow there. I agree with his policies (at least more so than his opponent's). I think tax breaks are a good thing.

I didn't agree with Clinton pulling out of Somolia after the Black Hawk incident , though I did agree with his use of force in Kosovo. I was glad Clinton had the courage to bomb a suspected terrorist training camp during the Monica scandal (even though it made him look bad).

Runt said: >>I don't think he's so much a stupid man as a dangerous one.<<

*rolling eyes* yes, very dangerous. How dare he pick on a poor little dictator like Saddam Hussein, after all what did Saddam ever do except mind his own business and gas Kurdish cities? Does this mean Bush is going to go after the Iranian and Libyan and North Korean governments, too? I say live and let live--it's the best strategy for dealing with maniacil dictators (worked with Hitler). Why on earth would Bush want to hurt those little guys? Must be for the oil.......Bush used to work in the oil industry, therefore it makes sense *again, rolling eyes intensely*

 

[Runt]

Are you seriously stupid enough to think that oil is not a perogative? This comes directly from the Republican Platform 2000 that Bush campaigned under:

"Eight years ago, the nation was energy confident. Our standing in the Middle East was at its zenith. The oil cartel was in retreat; gasoline was affordable, even as automotive progress reduced emissions from cars. Today, gas prices have skyrocketed, and oil imports are at all-time highs. Foreign oil now accounts for one-third of our total trade deficit. Meanwhile, domestic oil production has fallen 17 percent over the last eight years, as vast areas of the continental U.S. have been put off limits to energy leasing — though we depend on oil and natural gas for 65 percent of our energy supply. Additional oil reserves and deposits of low-sulfur coal may be out of reach because of unilateral designation of new national monuments...In the Middle East, the advancement of U.S. national interests requires clear and consistent priorities as well as close cooperation with America’s friends and allies. We have four priorities for the Middle East. First, we seek to promote and maintain peace throughout the region. Second, we must ensure that Israel remains safe and secure. Third, we must protect our economic interests and ensure the reliable flow of oil from the Persian Gulf. And fourth, we must reduce the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the region." http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/conventions/republican/features/platform.00/#53

Is Saddam Hussein a bad guy? Yes. However, answer these questions. They will seem familiar, since they're from another of my posts on this site:

"If we intended to make War On Terrorism for the good of all humanity, why do we only attack terrorist organizations that are a threat to the U.S. personally, rather than addressing the issue of the hundreds of other terrorist organizations out there in the world that are also committing atrocities? Why are all the terrorist organizations we are focused on located in the Middle East only? Why don’t we try to forcefully end conflict in Ireland, for example? Is it because the cost would be too high for our country to pay, even if the goal is to make the world safe for “everyone”? Isn’t terrorism anywhere a threat to humanity everywhere?

If we intended to go into Iraq to dismantle their Weapons of Mass Destruction and remove Saddam Hussein from power, why then were no Weapons of Mass Destruction found? Why was our intelligence so drastically incorrect? Why did we give weapons and military support to Saddam Hussein when he was our ally a few years ago and now suddenly think he is a “bad man” and want to kill him?

If we intended to bring Democracy to a land starved of freedom, why do we try to give them freedom by force, thereby eliminating a vital element in a democratic system—choice? Why do we ignore the fact that most of the Middle East is Islamic and most of those people would probably prefer to live under a theocracy (or at least a Democracy where people live by religious rules) because their religion dictates that the laws of man and the laws of Allah are and should be one and the same?"

Honestly. And I suppose you condone the torturing of Iraqi prisoners as a necessary aspect of the "war effort", right?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Are you seriously stupid enough to think that oil is not a perogative?

Gas prices have skyrocketed since we invaded Iraq...if oil really was the reason as you say, we would expect to see gas prices drop, not rise, because now we control a greater supply of oil, right? And more supply=lower prices right? The problem is, we don't control the oil any more now than we did before. The U.S. buys the oil from a company who owns it, just as the U.S. had to buy it from a company before the war....and beleive me there is no lack of potential vendors of oil...arab countries are more than willing to sell it to us. The U.S. doesn't just take the oil and hand it out for free to its citizens.... :roll:

So why did gas prices not go down? Because invading Iraq has served neither to increase the supply or decrease the demand for oil. So please Runt, using all your economic expertise, explain to me how invading Iraq would serve to lower gas prices? Sounds like pretty fuzzy economics to me.

Is Saddam Hussein a bad guy? Yes. However, answer these questions. They will seem familiar, since they're from another of my posts on this site:

"If we intended to make War On Terrorism for the good of all humanity, why do we only attack terrorist organizations that are a threat to the U.S. personally, rather than addressing the issue of the hundreds of other terrorist organizations out there in the world that are also committing atrocities?

We do want to make War on Terrorism, but we have to concentrate our efforts....are you suggesting that we can't go after a bad guy unless we go after all of the world's bad guys simultaneously? We're not allowed to take them out one by one? And there's nothing wrong with going after bad guys who also threaten the U.S., why you think this is a bad strategy is beyond me.

If we intended to go into Iraq to dismantle their Weapons of Mass Destruction and remove Saddam Hussein from power, why then were no Weapons of Mass Destruction found? Why was our intelligence so drastically incorrect?

You answered your own question. Our intel was bad, as was the world's. Even Saddam thought he had WMD's. It is confirmed that he did have a large arsenal of WMD's, though it's unclear where they are now--no one knows if they were destroyed (but not documented), exported, or hidden. Also, some WMD's were found, in shells containing Sarin or Mustard gas.

Why did we give weapons and military support to Saddam Hussein when he was our ally a few years ago and now suddenly think he is a “bad man” and want to kill him?

Well over a decade ago, Saddam was at war with Iran, a self-proclaimed enemy of the United States and Israel. When it appeared Iran was winning the war, the U.S. government gave Saddam weapons thereby creating a stalemate and preventing either Iraq or Iran from conquering the other. Saddam was a bad man then as he is now, but Iran was bad too...if either nation had won a decisive victory, it would have used its newly conquered territory and resources to carry on invasions against nearby nations.

If we intended to bring Democracy to a land starved of freedom, why do we try to give them freedom by force, thereby eliminating a vital element in a democratic system—choice? Why do we ignore the fact that most of the Middle East is Islamic and most of those people would probably prefer to live under a theocracy (or at least a Democracy where people live by religious rules) because their religion dictates that the laws of man and the laws of Allah are and should be one and the same?"

No one is forcing them to do anything. We freed them from an oppressive regime in which they had no choice. But now, the Iraqis will come up with their own constitution. They will freely vote for other Iraqis to represent them in their new government. If they want, they can ammend their constitution to incorporate Islam or pass Islamic laws, if that is the will of the voters. If the Iraqi people want a theocracy, they can vote for fellow Iraqis who will make that happen.

Honestly. And I suppose you condone the torturing of Iraqi prisoners as a necessary aspect of the "war effort", right?

Of course not. Those who committed those awful crimes should be punished. The U.S. should respect human rights, even if our enemies do not.