We are the only site on the web devoted exclusively to intellectual conservatism. We find the most intriguing information and bring it together on one page for you.

Why Christians Should Not Vote for George W. Bush
by Dr. Patrick Johnston
15 February 2004

George W. Bush professes to be a Christian, goes to church, makes references to Bible verses, and says, “God bless America,” but so did Bill Clinton, so this alone cannot be sufficient to win our vote.

The Roman emperor Nero didn’t mind Romans calling themselves Christians.  He didn’t throw them to the lions or burn them at the stake because they believed in Jesus.  He just wanted them to worship Caesar too.  They were allowed to add Jesus to their list of Roman gods.  Even today in Communist China, Christians are not beaten, tortured, and imprisoned in labor camps because they believe in Jesus or profess to be Christians.  Not at all.  They’re persecuted because they act like Christians.  They’re beaten and thrown in prison because they evangelize, because they deny the heresies of the government-sanctioned church, because they speak against tyrannical government usurpations such as the denial of God-given rights, because they refuse to render unto Caesar that which is due only to God. 

Not every person who professes to be a Christian is one.  Faith without works, without tangible deeds of obedience, is dead faith – it is the faith of devils. (James 2:10-24)  Jesus asks, “Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” (Luke 6:46)  “Ye shall know them by their fruits.  Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.  A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.  Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire.  Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.” (Matthew 7:16-20)

George W. Bush professes to be a Christian, goes to church, makes references to Bible verses, and says, “God bless America,” but so did Bill Clinton, so this alone cannot be sufficient to win our vote.  Like Clinton, George Bush’s fruit was evident to all with eyes to see during his campaign against Gore.  Many Christians were undoubtedly innocently ignorant of George W. Bush’s liberal tendencies and so easily susceptible to his conservative rhetoric, but far too many were willfully blind to his bad fruit.  Pragmatism took precedence over God’s Word and the principles of conservatism when conservatives the nation over supported and voted for the most electable candidate over the only blessable, anointable candidate, and as you will see in the course of this article, the roots of tyranny have deepened in America as a result.  The guilt for the daily encroachment on God-given rights to life, liberty, and property, under President Bush’s leadership, can be laid squarely at the foot of the professing church.  If there was ever any doubt about the liberal sway of George W. Bush before his Presidency, that doubt should be well cleared up by now for all but only the willfully naïve.

Do I believe that sincere, well-meaning Christians can vote for George Bush and be right with God?  Sure!  I believe that a sincere, well-meaning Christian can vote for Howard Dean and be right with God!  Having an IQ greater than a slug is not necessary in order to be a Christian.  Unintended ignorance can destroy a nation, however, and God’s people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge. (Hosea 6:4)  It is intentional, willful, or malicious ignorance in the absence of the fear of God that brings culpability (Proverbs 9), and of this I fear many professing Christians are guilty in their endorsement of George Bush in spite of the abundance of evidence of his bad fruit.

What is this “evil fruit” to which I refer?  Precisely what is it about George W. Bush that I believe should preclude sincere Christians from voting for him?

I. George W. Bush on Abortion

On the campaign trail, President Bush professed to be “pro-life,” but with exceptions – he believes abortion to be justified in cases of rape and incest.^1,2  The New York Times reported, “It was the same tempered language that George W. Bush typically uses to discuss abortion, which he opposes except in cases of rape, incest or risk to a pregnant woman's life.”³  As Alan Keyes pointed out in the Presidential debates and in various speeches, such pro-life exceptions that allow the innocent to be killed in some circumstances disqualify President Bush from being pro-life at all.⁴ If President Bush would justify the killing of one innocent person under his jurisdiction, he is disqualified from being a good person, much less a good leader.  Having a rapist for a dad is not a capital crime, and for President Bush to state that innocent children can justly be killed because of the tragic circumstances of their conception reveals that he doesn’t comprehend the basic principle of the inalienable, inviolable, God-given right to life acknowledged in our nation’s founding documents.

Also, on the campaign trail, George Bush and his wife both admitted that they don’t think Roe v. Wade should be overturned: “I don’t think the culture has changed to the extent that the American people or the Congress would totally ban abortions,” President Bush professed.⁵   His wife reiterated her husband’s sentiments on a prime-time television interview on January 18, 2001.  G. W. Bush has the power as the President of the United States to overturn this legal child-killing,⁶ but refuses to exercise this power, and so is responsible for all the child-killing he is allowing.

During the Presidential debates, President Bush was asked what he would say to a raped and pregnant family member.  He said that he would tell her that the decision whether or not to kill the child was up to her.  That is not pro-life.  That’s classic pro-abortion rhetoric.  If his daughter wanted to kill her grandmother to get the inheritance early, would he counsel her: “Sweetie, if you want to kill my mom, that’s completely up to you!?"  Commenting on abortion on the campaign trail, President Bush stated, “good people can disagree on that issue.”⁷  Oh really?  This is manifestly absurd.  Can good people disagree on whether or not innocent people should be murdered?  I beg to differ: Good people cannot accept the murder of one single innocent human being.

Many conservatives have tried to overlook President Bush’s liberal tendencies in hopes that at the least G. W. Bush will appoint a pro-lifer to the Supreme Court, and in so doing, help overturn Roe v. Wade.  Their hope is not only without evidence, it is plainly contrary to evidence.  In his prime-time television debates with Gore, George Bush flatly denied that he had a pro-life litmus test for Court appointees.⁸  If a judicial candidate deemed it just and constitutional to execute innocent people, that did not exclude him from a possible appointment to the Supreme Court according to President Bush.  President Bush has insisted that he will only appoint “strict constructionists” to the Court, or people who will interpret and apply the Constitution as the founders intended and not as an evolving, “living document,” but according to President Bush they need not be pro-life ‘strict constructionists.’  His record as Governor of Texas shows that he does indeed appoint pro-abortion judges, so we should not be surprised if President Bush were to appoint pro-abortion judges to the Supreme Court.

Frequently displayed as evidence of President Bush’s pro-life views is his signing of legislation when he was Texas’ Governor that forbade underage girls from getting abortions without parental consent.  The pro-life community roared their approval: a 13-year-old girl can’t get an aspirin without parental consent, why should she be allowed to undergo a surgical or chemical abortion without parental consent?!  That’s sound pro-life legislation, right?  George Bush must be pro-life, huh?  Wrong!  Did you realize that this piece of legislation was nullified by a Texas Supreme Court decision that ruled 6-3 that an unexceptional 17-year-old could get an abortion without telling her parents?⁹  The New York Times reported, “It was, after all, appointees of Gov. George W. Bush who took the lead on the issue…”  You see, it was G.W. Bush who appointed four of the court’s nine justices and has been a political patron for a fifth, Harriet O’Neill, who wrote the majority opinion in the parental notification case.  If this is what President Bush means by “strict constructionists,” then any hope that he will appoint a pro-lifer to the Federal bench is baseless.

Also displayed as evidence that President Bush is pro-life was his reinstitution of Reagan’s Mexico City policy in the first days of his Presidency, which forbade taxpayer dollars from being given to organizations that perform abortions overseas.¹⁰  However, the pro-life façade soon came down.  In a major policy shift, President Bush has decided to allow social service agencies in Africa and the Caribbean to receive funds from the U.S. treasury under his $15 billion emergency AIDS relief plan even if they promote family planning and provide abortions.^{11, 12} The New York Times confirmed, “Ignoring objections from his conservative base, President Bush is to make a Rose Garden speech on Tuesday in support of a $15 billion bill to fight A.I.D.S. internationally that will direct some money to groups that promote abortion," and that will do very little to actually prevent AIDS.¹³  

Conservative groups also hold forth President Bush’s support of the “Partial Birth Abortion Ban” as evidence that he is indeed pro-life.  Really?  Does that make Tom Daschle pro-life, since he supports the Ban too?  Don’t be so gullible, friend.  The Partial Birth Abortion Ban won’t save a single life!¹⁴ Not one!  Millions of rare pro-life dollars and countless hours of precious pro-life energy has been wasted over the course of a decade on a bill that won’t save a single life!   The same babies that would perish through the “Dilation and Extraction Procedure” will die through arguably more painful “procedures” such as the “Dilation and Evacuation Procedure,” where instead of being instantly killed with a stab to the head, the baby will be slowly ripped limb from limb.  Furthermore, the very language of the ban encourages the killing of the baby before extraction.  If an abortionist injects poison into the full-term baby’s heart, for instance, and then performs the “D & X Procedure,” then the Ban would not apply.¹⁵   Thoughtful pro-lifers should oppose this counterfeit pro-life bill, this colossal waste of paper that perpetuates the Abortion Holocaust.

Thanks to G.W. Bush’s leadership, companies such as Planned Parenthood, the largest baby-killing conglomerate in the world, will get taxpayer funding.  Planned Parenthood was responsible for the deaths of 227,385 Americans in 2002 alone.  Planned Parenthood's 2002-2003 Annual Report shows that 33 % of its income came from federal government grants and contracts totaling $254.4 million in the fiscal year ending in June 2003, thanks to Medicaid disbursements and President Bush’s Title X of the Public Health Service Act in 2001.  Under Bush, this baby-killing organization has received more tax-funds than under Clinton!  Thanks in large part due to government handouts under President Bush, Planned Parenthood raked in a hefty $36.6 million profit in its last fiscal year.¹⁶  

It is no exaggeration to say that President Bush kills babies.  He uses his influence and power to perpetuate the Abortion Holocaust.  Abortion abolitionists need to look beyond the Republican Party to find friends for the preborn.  Those of us who supported George W. Bush and elected him to office may be responsible for the bloodshed that he perpetuated, either by way of our willful ignorance or our intentional refusal to judge righteous judgment, to judge President Bush by its fruit.

II. George W. Bush on Sodomy

Conservatives all over the nation are significantly frightened right now about the prospects of Federally mandated “gay marriages.”  The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled this summer that their state constitution does not forbid gays from getting married, and they gave the legislature six months to change the marriage laws to accommodate sodomites who want to marry.  If the legislature capitulates and grants homosexuals the right to marry, they will get married in Massachusetts and return to their home states to sue to have their marriages accepted.  Thanks to a popular interpretation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, those suits may be successful and if they are, the social and financial benefits states grant to marriage will be minimized and the covenant of marriage in America will be crippled.  Under the present judicial tyranny that regularly defies the will of the people and spurns the Constitution, the fear of family advocacy groups is legitimate.

Similarly, conservatives fear the judicial activism that is forcing a new religion down our throats, namely, atheistic humanism.  We have Federal judges like U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson ruling that Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore has no right to acknowledge God on the job.  Conservatives are in an uproar about the judicial tyranny that would cause a democratically-elected, upright man such as Roy Moore, who was only following his state Constitution’s precedent in acknowledging God, to be evicted from the state bench. 

Where do these bench-legislating, cultural-marxist judges come from?

They come from Presidents like G.W. Bush!  And they are rubber-stamped to the bench by the so-called conservative Republicans in the Senate.  Let’s judge this President Bush by his fruit. 

In an interview with Diane Sawyer on gay unions, President Bush said, “The position of this administration is that whatever legal arrangements people want to make, they’re allowed to make, so long as it’s embraced by the state or at the state level.”¹⁷   In other words, if state Supreme Court judges want “civil unions” like the Vermont statute, that state should be allowed to have it.¹⁸   We should not be surprised by the judicial tyranny that threatens to force gay marriages, “gay civil unions,” and a new state religion, atheistic humanism, upon us – we have supported and voted for men such as President Bush who appointed these pro-abortion, pro-homosexual judicial activists.  The same family advocacy groups that condemn statements of President Bush like this that undermine traditional marriage supported him in 2000 and will probably support him in 2004.  

President Bush has stated that he has no qualms about hiring homosexuals,²⁰ and he has proven it.  He has appointed open homosexuals to high government positions at a rate that makes Bill Clinton look like a homophobe!²¹  In December of 1999, when President Bush was Governor of Texas, he appointed a supporter of the Houston Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus and also of Planned Parenthood, Martha Hill Jamison, to the 164th District Court in Houston.  Very early in his tenure as President, G.W. Bush appointed a pro-homosexual, pro-abortion candidate to the Federal bench.²²  Early in 2000, President Bush attempted to purge the Republican platform of planks against homosexual marriage and homosexuals in the military.  On April 9, 2001, he appointed a renown homosexual activist, Scott Evertz, to the Office of National AIDS Policy, which was the first appointment of an open homosexual to this federal position.²³  On June 18, 2002, he transferred Evertz to direct U.S. Policy on Global Fund for AIDS and appointed another homosexual activist to take over as new director of the Office of National AIDS Policy.²⁴

On September 18, 2001, President Bush appointed a homosexual activist to be Ambassador to Romania at the protest of the Romanian government.  Furthermore, President Bush authorized a Clinton policy that allows an “unmarried partner” of a foreign aid worker to be given the same status as a married spouse.  So the ambassador’s homosexual lover accompanies him to official government functions, travels with and resides with him on the taxpayers’ tab.  On August 22, 2001, President Bush appointed an open homosexual to the U.S. Commission on Fine Arts.²⁵  He presided over the appointment of another open homosexual to oversee the choice of civilian personnel at the Pentagon.²⁶   The Bush administration posted a job for a "gay and lesbian program specialist" at the Department of Agriculture.  On November 1, 2001, President Bush appointed an open homosexual to the State Department as an arms control advisor, which was the first appointment of an openly gay person to a senior arms control post.  President Bush insisted that openly homosexual Congressman Jim Kolbe of Arizona be given a prominent speaking role at the Republican National Convention.^{27, 28}  On January 25, 2002, President Bush appointed many openly gay Republicans to the President’s Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS.²⁹  

G.W. Bush hired running mate Dick Cheney’s openly gay daughter to be a consultant for him during his campaign.  “The governor believes Mr. Cheney has a wonderful family,” a Bush spokesman said. “Being gay or lesbian is not a liability in this campaign.  The governor embraces both of Mr. Cheney’s daughters and will invite them to campaign with him.”³⁰   Dick Cheney openly promotes “same-sex unions.”³¹

On Dec. 21, 2001, President Bush and the Republican Congress passed historic legislation extending family health benefits to Washington, D.C., employee's "partners" and also gave unfettered adoption rights to D.C. homosexual couples.  He refused to nullify a 1998 Clinton executive order prohibiting discrimination against homosexuals in the federal workforce.  He signed a bill allowing death benefits to be paid to the “domestic partners” of firefighters and police officers who die in the line of duty.³²  This was the first time that a federal death benefit was granted to same-sex couples.  He has increased funding for homosexual propaganda campaigns under the guise of health education programs.  He allowed the Office of Personnel Management, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of Justice, to openly celebrate “gay pride.”³³   On April 18, 2002, at the annual meeting of the Log Cabin Republicans, the White House hosted a first-ever policy briefing for gay Republicans, featuring senior administration advisors.³⁴  On June 24, 2002, President Bush signed the Father Mychal Judge Act, in honor of the openly gay fire department chaplain who died at the World Trade Center on 9-11.  This act allows public safety officers killed in the line of duty to assign federal benefits to designated beneficiaries, including same-sex partners.³⁵   It is the first such federal law which allows such benefits to be granted.

President Bush publicly praised the Metropolian Community Church of Los Angeles on occasion of its 35th anniversary, a church that performs 6,000 “gay marriages” annually.³⁶   In his letter of congratulations, President Bush said, “By encouraging the celebration of faith and sharing of God's love and boundless mercy, churches like yours put hope in people's hearts and a sense of purpose in their lives.  This milestone provides an opportunity to reflect on your years of service and to rejoice in God's faithfulness to your congregation."

George Bush joined a horde of homosexual activists in maligning and mischaracterizing a Christian man, Jerry Thacker, he had appointed to the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS.  Mr. Thacker’s wife acquired the disease from a blood transfusion during delivery, and when she and her infant son succumbed to the disease, Jerry Thacker, now HIV positive, devoted himself to ministering the transforming love of God to those dying of AIDS.  He offered forgiveness and redemption to homosexuals through the grace of Jesus Christ and reparative counseling.  Presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer said of Thacker, "The views that he holds are far, far removed from what the president believes."³⁷   Thacker withdrew from the appointment after President Bush and the homosexual smear machine began to denigrate and verbally assault him for his beliefs.

George Bush’s home church in Texas is Highland Park United Methodist Church in Dallas.³⁸ This church welcomes impenitent homosexuals as members.  President Bush said he reads the Bible daily, but he confessed to the New York Times, “I don’t necessarily believe every single word is literally true.” About the evolution-creation debate, he said, “The verdict is still out on how God created the earth. I don’t use the Bible as necessarily a way to predict the findings of science.”  In other words, Darwinism may be true according to President Bush.  When the Bible and a scientific consensus are at odds, whom do you think that George Bush believes?

The church has largely neglected its Biblical duty to judge a tree by its fruit, to “judge righteous judgment.”³⁹   George W. Bush is a counterfeit conservative.  If judicial activists pervert the covenant of marriage to accommodate the homosexual lobby, it will be because of politicians like George Bush who appoint them.  The majority of the Supreme Court justices who handed legalized child-killing down to us, who outlawed Bible reading and prayer in schools, and who refused to hear Roy Moore’s appeal were appointed by Republican “Christians” who got in office with the support of the conservative Christians in America.  The blame for the assault on the traditional family and the preborn can be laid squarely at our feet because of our negligence in preferring pragmatism over principle, political power over persecution, and religious pluralism over Christ.  The Supreme Court has forsaken God ultimately because the professing church has forsaken God.  Thousands of “the least of these” are murdered every day in America because the majority of professing Christians voted for it or failed to vote against it.  The only truly pro-life, pro-family, constitutional candidate for President who was on the ballot in 2000 was the Constitution Party’s candidate, but that vote would have required a faith that works. 

III. George W. Bush on Other Issues

There are many other reasons Christians should conscientiously object to voting for George W. Bush.  Certainly, many of these acts are not necessarily sinful, but together they provide convincing proof that George W. Bush is not an authentic conservative.

*   He demoralized Korean and Japanese Christians by bowing down at a pagan Shinto shrine in Japan.⁴⁰
*   His public profession that Muslims and Christians worship the same God, contrary to the plain teaching of Scripture.^{41, 42} 
*    His endorsement of Ramadan, a Muslim fast, at a White House celebration.⁴³
*    His proposal to increase funding of the National Endowment for the Arts by 15 percent, the highest percentage increase in two decades.  That's a total of 139 million dollars in 2005 to finance art, much of which is blasphemous.  (Recall the taxpayer-financed painting of a crucifix in a jar of urine.)⁴⁴
*    His support of increased Federal involvement in the education of children at the state and local level.  Funding for government education has increased billions of dollars under President Bush.⁴⁵ 
*    His support of Clinton’s 1995 “assault weapons ban” which outlawed a host of semi-automatic guns.  The gun ban was due to expire in 2005, but according to Presidential spokesman Scott McClellan, "The president supports the current law (the Clinton gun ban), and he supports reauthorization of the current law."^{46, 47}
*    His approval of federally-financed experimentation on human embryos.⁴⁸
*    His support of Clinton’s National Monuments Declaration, in which millions of acres of western land were seized by the executive branch.^{49, 50}
*    His dramatic increase in the size and spending of the federal government with a record deficit.  With his $2.23 trillion budget, his administration will complete the biggest increase in government spending since Lyndon Johnson’s "Great Society."  The budget deficit predicted by the House Budget Office will hit a record $306 billion.  Spending on government programs increased 22 % from 1999 to 2003.  A Washington Post report said, "The era of big government, if it ever went away, has returned full-throttle under President Bush.”  Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey commented that under President Bush, the federal government is "out of control." ⁵¹
*    Not only did President Bush publicly condemn Judge Roy Moore’s actions⁵², his chief political consultant Karl Rove spearheaded the attack against him.⁵³   When Roy Moore was before Bill Pryor’s inquisition, about to lose his job for his public stand for God, President Bush was in California campaigning for a pro-abortion, pro-homosexual Republican, Arnold Schwarzenegger.
*    His expansion of government welfare programs to illegal aliens and his proposals to grant amnesty to illegal aliens.^{54, 54, 56}   President Bush has demonstrated dangerous negligence in restoring security to our borders.
*    His proposal to increase the budget and the power of the Internal Revenue Service: “Bush would give the IRS a 5.3 percent boost to $10.4 billion for the budget year that begins Oct. 1.  That will include $133 million dollars for added audits of businesses and high-income taxpayers.”⁵⁸
*    His increased funding of the National Endowment of the Arts, which uses taxpayer money to publicize vulgar and blasphemous “art,” such as the artwork depicting a crucifix in a jar of urine.^{59, 60}
*    His endorsement and promotion of the globalist, sovereignty-threatening aims of the United Nations.^{61, 62}  He has continued the Clintonian policy of sending our soldiers to serve under U.N. commanders on U.N. missions.
*    He signed into law a massive expansion of Medicare that, according to Ron Paul (R-Texas), resulted in "the single largest expansion of the federal welfare state since the Great Society programs of the 1960s."^{63, 64}
*    In spite of the fact that he campaigned on the promise to veto any campaign finance reform legislation that limited Americans’ freedom of speech, he signed into law the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill that effectively eviscerated the first amendment.^{65, 66}
*    With the so-called Patriot Act and the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003, his remedy for terrorism has been an ever-growing police state.⁶⁷  These pieces of legislation read like KGB manuals of an all-powerful Leninist state – Janet Reno could only dream of serving under such a President!  The government can bug and search citizens and their private records without court oversight and without suspicion of a crime; they can lock you up indefinitely without a formal charge; they can deny you an attorney and a jury of your peers, etc.   Our leaders have exploited a tragedy to retire as the servants of the citizens and attempt to usurp constitutional limitations to become our masters. 

G.W. Bush is pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, he’s anti-gun, and he’s the biggest spender in American history.  American conservatives have taken the bait at the expense of their cause and God’s glory.

Rebuttal: (One I heard many times in the year preceding the 2000 elections.)

“A vote for Howard Phillips,” (the only pro-life, pro-family constitutional Presidential candidate on the ballot 2000) “is a vote for Al Gore.” 

If you are shortsighted, pragmatism will dictate that you vote for the least wicked man who will do the least amount of wickedness and destroy the least amount of your freedoms these next four years.  I have a good friend who can’t stand President Bush’s pro-abortion or pro-homosexual leanings or his big-government remedy for every social ill, but he voted for Bush in 2000 anyway because the one thing he feared more than Bush was Gore.  But if you vote for the lesser of two evils every four years, the lesser of two evils will inevitably become more and more wicked!  If you vote for the most conservative of two liberals every four years, the most conservative liberal will become more and more liberal!  Your vision must be greater than the next four years.  You need to vote with your grandchildren in mind.  

If you always vote for the most conservative of two liberal candidates, then America will always be justifying the murder of preborn children.  Always!  In 2020, maybe the lesser of two evils is a pro-abortion homosexual who will charge you only 80% for taxes while the greater of two evils is a pro-abortion communist who charges 95%.  Do you see what I am saying?  There must be some issues on which conservatives will not compromise, and the legal killing of children is one of those issues. 

I am going to vote to keep my conscience clean first and foremost.  That means I’m going to vote for the best man for the job and pray in faith (not in unbelief) for a miracle.  If more saints did the same, we WILL see our miracle.⁶⁹   I am praying, "God give us godly leaders who will outlaw abortion and govern us in accordance with the laws of nature and nature's God."  How can I pray this prayer and not act in accordance?  Should I pray in unbelief (as evidenced by my vote on Nov.7)?  Or should I pray in faith, and act in accordance to my prayers?

Voting for Bush over Gore was not “the lesser of two evils,” as it has often been said.  It was more evil!  When the liberal President Bill Clinton tried to shove his socialistic, liberal nonsense down the nation’s throat, conservatives in Congress and around the nation fought him every step of the way.⁷⁰   How can so many of those conservatives live with themselves as they support and vote with President Bush as he does the very same thing they so vigorously opposed with Bill Clinton?  It appears that conservatives have unconditional allegiance for their darling, “Christian” President, regardless of how many babies he kills, how many militant homosexual he appoints, how much of our hard-money he steals and spends on nonsense to which we would not donate voluntarily, how many of our constitutional liberties he rescinds with his anti-terrorism legislation, and how successful he has been in four years at doing what Clinton was unable to do in eight!  As Alan Keyes admitted when George W. Bush was chosen to be the Republican nominee, Bush is more dangerous than Clinton!  Voting the lesser of two evils is only reasonable when it truly is lesser; but with the Republican Party’s capitulation to Bush’s liberal agenda, Bush accomplished much more for the left than Clinton ever dreamed! 

I would be remiss to mention that many Christian Bush-supporters are not ignorant or naive about the President's liberal tendencies.  They hate government-sanctioned child-killing and the homosexual agenda and they are aware of Bush’s grave shortcomings in these areas, but they believe that promoting godliness in government is a matter of "incrementalism" -- a gradual shifting of policies and legislation to the right.  The conservative "incrementalists" condemn my approach as an "all-or-nothing" mentality that is doomed to obscurity and failure.  I have two comments about the philosophy of incrementalism when it comes to President Bush.  First, if Bush is "incrementally" taking us anywhere, it's to the left.  The same goes with the Republican party as a whole: they are "incrementally" taking conservativism to the left -- we are not taking them to the right.  Under G.W. Bush and a Republican-dominated Congress and Senate, there are more babies dying at the expense of the taxpayers, there are more homosexual proponents of gay marriage being elevated to positions of government leadership, the central government is getting larger and Constitutional rights are being undermined even more than under Clinton.  Conservatives have been betrayed by Bush's rhetoric, and have not judged him by his fruit. 

Second, I freely admit that political incrementalism has its place.  I am not at all against it.  But there comes a time when Christians, constrained by conscience, must draw a line in the sand and say, "No!  I'm not going to compromise anymore!"  If we can compromise to support a Presidential or Congressional candidate who supports the killing of innocent preborn children in some instances, then what won't we compromise on?  Would we compromise to support a candidate that supported the killing of Jews, or the elderly and infirmed?  Would we compromise to support the "incremental" abolition of kidnapping and enslaving blacks?  Would we compromise to support a candidate that supported the killing of Christians?  I don’t think we would compromise to support a “conservative” candidate who endorsed the killing of us, and if not, do we love our neighbor as ourselves if we compromise to support a candidate who endorses the killing of our preborn neighbors?  I fear for the professing Christians who compromise to vote for a President whom they know justifies abortion and who doesn't want Roe v. Wade to be overturned.  Will they look down at their hands on Judgment Day to see them stained with innocent blood?  Will they hear, "Inasmuch as ye did it not to the least of these, ye did it not to me"? (Matthew 25:45)

Conclusion:

In George W. Bush, the church has elected a government leader after its own image.  Our government and society have descended headlong into the sewage of immorality because the church has.  Homosexuals and pro-abortion activists fill our government offices because they fill our pews and choir lofts.  We have largely ceased to be the salt of the United States of America, and Jesus promised that we’ll be cast out and trodden under the boot heels of wicked men.⁷¹   Judgment must first begin in the House of God.  Suffering and tyranny will be our lot if we persist in our lukewarmness.  There are many more September 11’s coming, America.  The II Chronicles 7:14 remedy for national forgiveness and healing includes that we “turn from (our) wicked ways.”  If the American church doesn’t repent for tolerating sin and leaving our first love, then the Lord will remove our candlestick.⁷²  However, if we repent of our tolerance of sin and judge ourselves, if we put impenitent sinners out of the church as I Corinthians 5 instructs, the Lord promises that we will not be judged.  If we pray in faith for godly leaders and act in accordance, then the Lord, who sets up and tears down kings, might restore the Republic.  The future of our nation and our liberties depends on our obedience to His law and will. 

In 1995, James Dobson of Focus on the Family publicly repented on air and in his March newsletter for having supported somewhat pro-choice politicians.  “Perhaps this explains the statement I made on the radio last month, which some of you questioned.  Let me express it once more,” wrote Dobson.  “I am committed never again to cast a vote for a politician who would kill one innocent baby…  Never will I use my influence, however remotely, to support the shedding of their blood.”   After the election, James Dobson admitted that he voted for Howard Phillips, the Constitution Party’s Candidate for President.  

It’s time that Christians make the same vow: never again will we use our influence or our vote or a single red cent to encourage one drop of innocent bloodshed.  We will draw a line in the sand far enough to the right that no pro-abortion fanatics, homosexual activistss, or God-haters can win our allegiance.  Like Gideon’s Army, the Lord may dwindle us down to a zealous few before the victorious battle, but it will be a few out of whom God can get some glory. 

As for me and my house, we will support and vote for a Presidential candidate that is pro-life without exceptions, who will not capitulate to the militant homosexuals, and who will constrain themselves to the Constitution upon which our nation was founded. 

Dr. Johnston practices family medicine in Zanesville, Ohio, and is Vice Chairman of the Constitutional Party of Ohio. His ministry is Where the Truth Hurts.