|
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hughes Jonathan Enough Izzy (spellcheck wants me to change
it to Dizzy. Tee hee). If you are going to try to refute me at
least put some effort into it. What I said is that Bush claims to be
anti-abortion but in policy does the exact opposite. Your points below
prove it again. The first point and perhaps the most important one of
this post are the answers to the following questions: Are you
honestly willing to look at the facts regarding Bush? Are you reading for
understanding or just to refute? If proven that your support for Bush is
completely unChristian are you willing to vote for somebody else? If they
answer is yes read on. If the answer is no throw away your Bible and
drink the Kool-aid. Your post beautifully illustrates my
point. In 2002 funding was increased to 480 million. In 2003 it was
decreased to 425 million. This money is used for abortions. Whether
it is 480 million or 425 million it is an awful (in every sense of the word)
lot of money used to promote abortion. In 2002 Bush did give 21 million
to the UNFPA. In other words he did support abortion with millions of
dollars during his term. That he removed it the next year says nothing as
the money was redirected to another abortion agency. So what is your
argument again? Do you deny that Bush gave 425 million to the United
Nations Population Fund last year? Read the facts. President Bush’s fiscal 2003 budget would cut
US international family planning funds to $425 million and envisions no funding
for UNFPA, the world’s most far-reaching
family planning agency. JONATHAN I READ A WHOLE Next point. Bush gave millions to
the USAID organization. Your article points out that he only withdrew
money for the CONFERENCE (read public relations move). They still got
their millions to kill babies. Do you deny this? Read the facts.WHILE YOU ARE DOING YOUR RESEARCH YOU WILL FIND THAT BUSH IS
REDIRECTING US FUNDS AWAY FROM ABORTION AND INTO MEDICAL TREATMENT FOR
IMPOVERISHED COUNTRIES.� WHILE YOU ARE RESEARCHING: WHAT GOOD IS When you support Bush you are supporting
abortion. When you vote for Bush/Kerry you will be voting for millions of
dollars going towards killing babies. Sleep well. The proof is in
the money. How come you ignored Bush's own claim that he will do nothing
to outlaw abortion? How about his definition of abortion? Talk
about being selective. How about looking at the partial birth abortion
issue? Sickeningly selective. Read the facts.YOU ARE JUST AS BLIND AS YOU CLAIM OTHERS ARE. READ THEM YOURSELF.�
YOU HAVE NO FACTS TO SUPPORT YOUR “SICKENINGLY SELECTIVE” VIEWPOINT.� THIS
WHOLE CONVERSATION MAKES ME FEEL DISGUSTED.� HAVE A GOOD TIME ACTING LIKE
KERRY: NOTHING BUT BAD NEWS FROM YOU. GET A LIFE. IZZY What does it mean to be pro-life to
you? Does it mean no abortions, a few abortions for selected cases
(health of mother, rape, incest), or close to half a billion dollars worth of
promotion and aid to undertake abortion? If you are really against
abortion you cannot, I repeat cannot think that voting for Bush (or
Kerry) is helping babies. If abortion really mattered to you
(i.e. was your single most important issue on your decision of who to vote for)
you would vote for a candidate that campaigned with the platform to completely
stop abortion. Voting for a platform that says they dislike it but will
do nothing about it is hypocrisy. To stop this conversation just sign on the
doted line below and send it back to the group. I, Izzy (Linda) support George W Bush in
giving nearly half a billion dollars to abortion supportive agencies. I
sleep better knowing my taxpaying money and vote helps babies to be
murdered. This makes me feel like a Christian. I like being a
hypocrite. Abortion makes me feel icky inside but I don't really care
enough about it to change my vote. ______________________________________ We can discuss stem-cell research in a separate post if you
like. Be warned though - showing Bush's lies on stem-cell
research is perhaps the simplest thing I could spend my time doing.
If you want me to waste the time fire away. Jonathan From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Izzy in red below. Jonathan, if you
can confine yourself to one attack at a time, we will begin with your
allegations that President Bush is a pro-abortionist. Yet you are very
selective in your facts (as is the Constitutional
Party, and Bush’s other detractors who selectively use facts to
mislead the public). Please see below, and then please apologize to
President Bush for your slander. Izzy From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hughes Jonathan More stuff on Bush and abortion. Izzy, do you still
feel the same way about Bush after reading this? Does abortion really
matter to you? And while we are on the subject of abortion, President
G.W. Bush signed legislation in 2002 that increased funding for International
Family Planning to the tune of $480.5 million making this Republican-led
administration the biggest supporter of international baby butchery in Bush FY’2003 Budget Guts International Family Planning Funds NEW: An analysis of the FY2003 Budget Request
from Population Action International
UN Population Fund Zeroed Out Feb 4 – President George W. Bush’s Fiscal Year 2003 Budget, released today,
envisions a deep, 11% cut in international family planning programs. Last year,
Congress appropriated $480.5 million for international family planning,
including $34 million for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).
President Bush’s fiscal 2003 budget would cut US international family planning
funds to $425 million and envisions no funding for UNFPA,
the world’s most far-reaching family planning agency. The President’s 2003 budget proposes a $115 million increase in
funding for the US Agency for International Development’s HIV/AIDS programs around the world. In
addition, the Administration proposes a $120 million contribution to UNICEF,
the UN’s advocate for children, and a modest $1 million contribution to UNIFEM,
the UN fund for women. The Administration’s decision to withhold funding for UNFPA
represents a startling reversal not only of legislation passed unanimously in
the US Senate and by a 3-to-1 margin in the House, but also of previous
Administration policy. In his first budget proposal to Congress, covering fiscal 2002,
President Bush requested $25 million in funding for UNFPA.
The Administration also approved the release of $21.5 million in fiscal 2001
funds for UNFPA after determining that UNFPA
was in compliance with Recently,
many "pro-lifers" heaped voluminous praise upon Mr. Bush when he
decided to withhold a miniscule (by comparison) $34 million in federal funds
from UNFPA (a UN abortion agency in What
these ignorant (or deluded) "pro-lifers" failed to notice was that
Bush redirected that $34 million to USAID Child Survival Health Program Fund.
This fund includes money for "forecasting, purchasing, and supplying
contraceptive commodities and other materials necessary for reproductive health
programs." In
other words, all President Bush did was play the old shell game by taking $34
million from one pro-abortion agency and giving it to another pro-abortion
agency. As American Life League President Judy Brown said, "These
'contraceptive commodities' are nothing but abortion-inducing chemicals that
kill the very children that the fund claims to help." Jonathan
Hughes
Bush Pulls USAID Funds for
"Reproductive Rights" Conference
Furthermore,
you have ignored the fact the President Bush has made stem cell research
illegal on anything other than some samples that were pre-existing prior to his
decision, to avoid abortions for that purpose: Stem Cell Research Has Broad Bipartisan Support.
Fifty-eight Senators, including John Kerry, sent George Bush a letter urging
him to lift the ideologically-driven restrictions on stem cell research.
Fourteen Republicans - including Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Kay Bailey Hutchinson
(R-TX), and John McCain (R-AZ) - joined Democrats in sending Bush a loud and
clear message. John Kerry has joined members from both sides of the aisle to
work toward overturning the ban on federal funding of research on new stem cell
lines while providing strict ethical oversight as doctors and scientists
explore their full potential. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/health_care/stemcell.html Jonathan, Do you have any further stones to throw at
President Bush regarding his position on abortion, or are you ready to concede
that you were wrong? Izzy This e-mail and any attachments contain confidential and privileged
information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender
immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and destroy any copies. Any
dissemination or use of this information by a person other than the intended
recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal. Thank you for your cooperation in
connection with the above. | ||||||||||
<<image001.gif>>
<<image002.gif>>
