Kibbitz: The word comatose comes to mind when I think about how Evangelical Christendom has been hoodwinked by GW Bush and his carefully crafted “folksy phoniness.”
It seems that all that all a politician has to do these days is to glad-hand a few of the “movers and shakers” of the Evangelical world, spout off some Christian-sounding phrases, and then let the lemming mentality of the Church take over.
The big names of the “Evangelical” world should be hanging their collective heads in shame. Often they inspire nothing but a certain form of somnambulance by promulgating the official dogma of Evangelical politics: i.e., the Romans 13 principle of chopping off your head upon Caeasar’s request.
But G-d forbid that such leaders should ask their flocks to THINK or perhaps honestly pray about the various ethical horrors served up these days in the name of “democracy.” Heaven forbid these pastors should question that the war in Iraq, for example, might have been based on outright deception and lies…. But maspik. This isn’t the place for me to appeal to the Church to “wake up!” We are past the point of no return.

At any rate, it is now reported that GW Bush is the greatest big-time spender in US political history, even outspending LBJ. Are you surprised? I’m not, especially since Mr. Bush is a Hegelian universalist who regularly uses propaganda, disinformation, and the devil’s logic to further other ends — ends that are inimical to the original vision of the United States of America.
WASHINGTON — George W. Bush, despite all his recent bravado about being an apostle of small government and budget-slashing, is the biggest spending president since Lyndon B. Johnson. In fact, he’s arguably an even bigger spender than LBJ.
“He’s a big government guy,” said Stephen Slivinski, the director of budget studies at Cato Institute, a libertarian research group.The numbers are clear, credible and conclusive, added David Keating, the executive director of the Club for Growth, a budget-watchdog group.“He’s a big spender,” Keating said. “No question about it.”
Take almost any yardstick and Bush generally exceeds the spending of his predecessors.When adjusted for inflation, discretionary spending — or budget items that Congress and the president can control, including defense and domestic programs, but not entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare — shot up at an average annual rate of 5.3 percent during Bush’s first six years, Slivinski calculates.
That tops the 4.6 percent annual rate Johnson logged during his 1963-69 presidency. By these standards, Ronald Reagan was a tightwad; discretionary spending grew by only 1.9 percent a year on his watch.
Discretionary spending went up in Bush’s first term by 48.5 percent, not adjusted for inflation, more than twice as much as Bill Clinton did (21.6 percent) in two full terms, Slivinski reports.Defense spending is the big driver — but hardly the only one.
More here: Source
The LORD is in control, of course, but it is a deadly certainty that judgment will soon fall on the USA for its crimes and horrors. My prayer is that those who are truly calling upon His Name will be ready for that time to come.
John,
Do you seriously think President Bush would be in office, twice, without the LORD’s hand behind it? I’m looking at the graphics you chose to go along with this post and can’t help but wonder if you harbour hatred in your heart towards George Bush. I disagree with you when you say “that judgment will soon fall on the USA for its crimes and horrors”. If judgment falls on the USA it will be for the sins of her people–abortion, euthenasia, pornography, gluttony, to name a few. We are reaping what the “hippie” generation from the 60′s and 70′s has sown. They are the ones who have the power now; imagine what their children will do when they attain power.
These comments are meant to provoke people to think, Debra. I am not claiming the “last word” on the subject, nor do I propose to be an expert.
However, if you research a little bit into GW Bush, I am sure you will discover a lot of information that will lend credibility to the view that his policies have been bad for the USA.