Resources to aid your Understanding


Subtitle: Shockingly, the Bush Administration has not changed Clinton policies toward homosexuality, even pursuing a "gay Republican agenda", and few Christian, or Pro-Life, or Pro-Family voters are even aware! But, the horror is greater:  Bush has gone beyond Clinton's pro-gay policies in some areas!

The New World Order is coming! Are you ready? Once you understand what this New World Order really is, and how it is being gradually implemented, you will be able to see it progressing in your daily news!!

Learn how to protect yourself, your loved ones!

Stand by for insights so startling you will never look at the news the same way again.



NEWS BRIEF:  "The Bush Administration's Republican Homosexual Agenda:  The First 100 Days",  by Robert Knight, Peter LaBarbara, and Kenneth Ervin II, Culture and Family, May 31, 2001, http://www.cultureandfamily.org/library/2001-05/31_bush-100.shtml

"During the presidential campaign, George W. Bush courted Christians and other pro-family Americans by promising to restore family values and morality to the White House.  The assurances worked; Bush received a large majority of the votes of self-identified evangelical Christians and a healthy percentage of the votes of pro-family Catholics and pro-family Protestants in mainline denominations.  Many pro-family Americans looked to the new President to reverse the pro-homosexual agenda of his predecessor, Bill Clinton—America’s first-ever pro-homosexual president. Millions of citizens viewed Clinton's  promotion of homosexuality.  as a symbol of the nation’s moral decline. However, in his first 100 days in the White House, Mr. Bush has not only failed to take any steps to overturn these policies but actually is supporting a 'gay Republican' agenda."

American Christians and other Pro-Family voters were absolutely sick and tired of Clinton's ungodliness, his personal immorality, and his promotion of homosexuality.  We had endured eight long years of absolute moral filth pouring out of the White House, making every fiber of our collective being screaming for a change.  We wanted a new president who would restore moral integrity and honor to the Oval Office.  We wanted a president who would not offend our sensibilities by pandering to the homosexual activists.

George W. Bush encouraged us greatly.  He said he was Born Again he said he shared our value systems; and he promised to restore Christian integrity to the Office of the Presidency. 

And, American voters responded by electing George W. Bush to the White House.  We were ecstatic for we felt we finally had one of our own in the Oval Office!  We brushed aside signs of doubt, such as that debate between Bush and Gore, in which Gore pressed Bush to define any differences in domestic policy.  Bush admitted there was virtually no difference between his domestic policy and what Gore would enact!  We brushed aside such subtle worries, for we were convinced Bush was a genuine Christian, and we voted for him by the many millions.

One area we were absolutely convinced that Bush would make a major impact was homosexuality.  Clinton was so pro-homosexual in his policies we could barely stand it.  In his first week in office, Clinton issued a controversial order ensuring that the military could no longer easily expel homosexuals.  From that moment to the end of his Administration, Clinton actively promoted the homosexual lifestyle.

Therefore, it comes as a great shock to realize that George W. Bush did NOT reverse Clinton's pro-homosexual policies, but has, instead, followed what these journalists describe his policies as a "gay Republican' agenda".  For years, pro-gay Republicans have argued that the GOP needed to open its doors to gays and lesbians, so as to not allow the Democrats to seize nearly 100% of their votes.  But, no one ever dreamed that a self-professed Christian president would be the one to open the Republican door to homosexual policies.

But, you ask, give me specifics , so here are specifics:

"In his first 100 days as President, Mr. Bush:

"What follows is an outline of the Bush administration’s general record on homosexual issues, beginning with remarks by vice presidential candidate Dick Cheney and continuing through the President’s first 100 days."


"Perhaps pro-family advocates who suffered through eight years of promotion of homosexuality under Clinton were naïve to put their hopes in President Bush. After all, it was Bush who in April 2000—in a highly publicized campaign appearance—met with Republican homosexual activists in Texas and declared that he was a “better person” for having done so [Alison Mitchell, “Bush talks to gays and calls it beneficial,” New York Times, April 14, 2000, p. A26]."

Let me get this straight:  during the presidential campaign, Bush actually met with homosexual advocates and then called the results "beneficial"?  I closely follow the daily news, but totally missed this story; did you miss it as well?  Or, were we wanting a Christian president so much we just ignored contrary stories?  The next quote from this featured article tells us that some concrete agreements had been reached between Bush and these homosexual advocates. 

"A year later, it is apparent that Bush’s meeting with the 'group of 12' set in place a policy of working closely with homosexual activist Republicans and appointing them to key positions in his administration.  From the outset of his campaign, Bush sought to mute opposition to the homosexual activist agenda to help him burnish a 'moderate' image. When pro-family groups, upset at Bush’s meeting with homosexuals, sought a similar meeting (to include former homosexuals), the candidate’s staff refused, citing political considerations."

We have repeatedly urged you to not be fooled by the "Madison Avenue" campaign image that was very carefully created for any presidential campaign.  While all candidates' professional campaigns set forth false images to the electorate to win elections, we felt the Bush campaign had equaled the image capabilities of the Clinton campaign team.  We knew Bush's Illuminist roots are so very deep, and we could see he was not repentant of his past participation in Skull & Bones, so we worried that, perhaps, Bush might be a most dangerous president.  Now, it seems as though our skepticism was well founded. 

Let us go back now to our feature article.

"As the GOP convention approached, the Bush team sought to create an image of 'moderation', which translated into hiding the party’s conservative pro-family leaders and any opposition to homosexuality. Bush picked Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson to represent him in the Republican platform hearings ... Thompson met with homosexual Republican activists and then with pro-family leaders who demanded equal time. Though he assured the latter group that the Bush campaign cared deeply about their concerns, according to news reports he subsequently tried to strip the platform of several provisions (carried over from 1996) critical of homosexuality. Conservatives were able to reinstate the planks ..." [Robert Knight, Ibid.]

"Bush further alienated conservative Christians by honoring a promise made to the homosexual 'group of 12 to have an open homosexual speak at the GOP convention in Philadelphia. Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Arizona) gave a primetime address, as Christians from the Texas Republican delegation bowed their heads in prayer in a silent protest. The speech by Kolbe (though not on “gay” issues) rankled many pro-family advocates. They noted that the Bush team did not allow any primetime speeches by pro-life leaders such as Alan Keyes ..." [Ibid.]

It is unbelievable that Bush officials were so blatantly pro-homosexual during the early parts of the campaign and during the Republican nominating convention.   Why didn't the Republicans who "bowed their heads in prayer" in silent protest when Jim Kolbe -- "an open homosexual" -- was speaking, not openly break with Bush on this issue?  Had they openly and boldly protested, they might have forced such an open debate that Christian voters might have awakened from their slumber in time to force a new change, possibly even a change in candidates!


"On the campaign trail, it was Dick Cheney—whose daughter Mary is an open lesbian—who pushed the envelope on homosexuality. At a news conference in Vermont, where voters were rebelling against an unpopular law giving marital benefits to homosexual 'civil unions', Cheney passed up an opportunity to criticize the law.   Later, in the vice presidential debate with Sen. Joseph Lieberman, he was asked, 'Should a male who loves a male and a female who loves a female have all … the constitutional rights enjoyed by every American citizen?' Instead of defending marriage and pointing out that homosexuals already have the same rights as other citizens, Cheney sounded libertarian themes and said different states would come to different conclusions in regulating homosexual 'marriage'.” [Ibid.]

"Cheney said, 'I don’t think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area … we ought to do everything we can to tolerate and accommodate whatever kind of relationships people want to enter into'. Cheney’s answer troubled family advocates, but drew little opposition from Republicans, who were desperate to end Democratic control of the White House and feared exposing Cheney’s softness on the homosexual issue." [Ibid.]

This latter attitude is the kind that could ultimately cause God's Judgment to fall upon America.  When Republicans who were willing to NOT EXPOSE Cheny's position on homosexuality simply because they desperately wanted to end Democratic control of the White House, they betrayed us all.  They may have just enabled a "Wolf in Sheep's Clothing" to be elected President of the United States!

Now, back to our feature article:

"The Bush campaign did not repudiate either statement by Cheney, thus signaling that opposition to the homosexual political agenda would not be a priority in his administration. In a subsequent presidential debate, Bush affirmed that marriage is between a man and a woman, and he criticized 'special rights' for homosexuals. But on more than one occasion he has said through a spokesman that Vermont-type homosexual 'civil union' legislation is a 'state issue'. The president thus threw away a great opportunity as a moral leader to encourage the states to protect marriage."  [Emphasis added; Ibid.]

Not only did Bush throw away a great opportunity to play the part of a Christian moral leader that would affirm the Biblical standard of marriage only between a man and a woman, he exercised "political-speak" that spoke volumes to the homosexual activist while hiding his true position from the naive Christian voter.  By stating that the homosexual issue was a matter for the states, Bush was sending a strong signal that he would not use the power of the "bully pulpit" of the White House to roll back the terribly pro-gay policies of the Clinton Administration!  Homosexual activists got the message; Christian voters did not!  Once again, our naivete doomed us!

Back to Robert Knight's column:

"As the campaign proceeded, pro-family opponents of organized homosexuality grew increasingly apprehensive at Vice President Cheney’s sympathy for the 'gay' activist cause. Homosexual activists used the Mary Cheney connection to lobby Republicans to abandon their opposition to their agenda.  Mary Cheney’s lesbianism was hardly a secret. Working for Coors Brewing Company as a liaison to homosexual groups, she funneled corporate contributions to several homosexual activist organizations, including $110,000 to the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD)—a strident homosexual group that later led a mean-spirited crusade against Dr. Laura Schlessinger. GLAAD celebrates positive portrayals of homosexuality in Hollywood and the media, most recently heaping praise on the TV show Dawson’s Creek for featuring a five-second kiss between two young male characters." [Ibid.]

"During the 2000 presidential campaign, Mary Cheney was her father’s senior policy advisor and described by him as his 'aide-de-camp'.    She attended the GOP convention and the presidential inauguration openly with her lesbian partner.  Second Lady Lynne Cheney—after initially reacting angrily to a question posed by ABC newswoman, Cokie Roberts, about her daughter’s sexuality—has begun to use rhetoric favored by homosexual activists... " [Ibid.]


"... the Bush administration will go to great lengths to avoid appearing 'anti-gay'. At a press briefing on March 19, reporter Les Kinsolving asked White House spokesman Ari Fleischer if the President would endorse a Republican-led, lopsided vote in the Vermont Legislature banning homosexual 'marriages'. The ensuing exchange show[ed] how disinclined the President is to use his bully pulpit to defend marriage ..." [Ibid.]

Once again, a Bush official utilized the "code word speak-ease" to cloak his true position.  Rather than boldly stating that he was opposed to homosexual unions, the Bush spokesman fell back to the "states-rights" language that so easily cloaks the true Bush position.

Robert Knight continues:

"On at least two occasions, Fleischer and the Bush administration have implicitly endorsed Clinton’s Executive Order giving special protection for homosexual federal employees. These orders, like his other pro-'gay' edicts, were roundly criticized by pro-family groups when Clinton first announced them. But while Bush has moved to reverse or halt implementation of Clinton orders on a variety of other public policy matters, he has not done so on any dealing with homosexual activism [after this article was written, Bush officials quietly announced that he was reversing not one Clinton Executive Order]."  [Ibid.]

"President Bush and his defense secretary also reportedly have affirmed that they will implement an 'Anti-Harassment Action Plan' for homosexual soldiers. A Department of Defense working group announced the plan in July 2000. After a homosexual activist group, the Servicemen’s Legal Defense Network ... issued a report in March alleging pervasive harassment of 'gay' soldiers, a military spokesman said that Secretary Donald Rumsfeld would issue regulations to bar harassment of homosexuals.   This must be seen in light of the fact that Congress passed a law explicitly upholding the ban on homosexuality in the military. Although under Clinton the Pentagon issued regulations that conflict with the law, homosexuals are still barred by law from entering the armed forces." [Ibid.]

Thus, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld was going to issue regulations to bar harassment of homosexual soldiers when the law forbids gays from even entering the service!  We would expect this kind of hypocrisy from Clinton, but why is George W. acting this way?


"Despite vocal public outcry from pro-family advocates in both the United States and Canada, President Bush stood solidly behind his nomination of Massachusetts Gov. A. Paul Cellucci as U.S. Ambassador to Canada. Pro-family organizations, first in Massachusetts then across the nation, opposed Cellucci due to his record as one of the most pro-homosexual governors in the United States. Cellucci, who was also opposed by pro-life groups upset at his pro-abortion stances, presided over the advancement of radical homosexual policies in Massachusetts public schools that subjected middle- and high school students to one-sided pro-homosexual seminars. Homosexual groups in Massachusetts had succeeded in winning state monies for their agenda under the previous Republican governor, William Weld, but Cellucci increased this taxpayer funding to $1.5 million annually. The governor’s pro-'gay' youth agenda exploded into a national scandal in March 2000, when a parent secretly taped a 'Queer Sex' workshop at a conference sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). The workshop, which was endorsed by the Massachusetts Department of Education and taught by three state employees, was advertised for 'youth only' and exposed children as young as 12 to graphic verbal coaching on how to perform potentially life-threatening homosexual sex acts." [Ibid.]

 I have listened to tapes of this "Queer Sex" abomination masquerading as teaching.  Using obscene language normally found only in adult only bookstores, these "teachers" are systematically teaching homosexual acts to children, acts that are known to open a participant up to the threat of AIDS and all the other diseases associated with homosexual activity.

Robert Knight continues:

"Despite a widening lobby effort against Cellucci by a coalition of pro-family groups, no U.S. senator except Jesse Helms (R-North Carolina) opposed him, and Bush made no move to reconsider the nomination ... After a conservative protester disrupted the initial Senate Foreign Affairs Committee hearing for Cellucci, his nomination was rushed through to avoid further protests by pro-family groups." [Ibid.]

I remember this entire process very well, and was totally surprised that "Conservative", "Christian" George W. Bush would nominate the most Liberal, most ungodly, and most pro-homosexual activist governor in the nation to the post of ambassador.  The only good that could possibly come out of this terrible situation was that we voters in Massachusetts lost a really bad governor!


"President Bush appointed Wisconsin homosexual activist Scott Evertz to head up the White House Office on AIDS Policy. Many conservatives had hoped this agency would be disbanded—noting there are no special White House agencies for other diseases like Alzheimer’s and cancer. The choice of Evertz, who was supported by HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson, seemed inappropriate because homosexual practices are the leading cause of AIDS in America. Moreover, Evertz had been quoted in the press as favoring such policies as drug-needle giveaways, condom distribution in schools, and homosexual 'marriage'¾ which not only constitute bad AIDS policy but contradict President Bush’s public stands. Fleischer defended Evertz, a leader of the Wisconsin branch of Log Cabin Republicans saying: 'The president picks the best people for their jobs, regardless of what their backgrounds may or may not be, and that is why he has chosen Scott. The president respects him. He will be welcome at this White House'.” [Ibid. NOTE:  Log Cabin Republicans is an influential Gay-Lesbian organization; you can see their agenda at http://www.lcr.org/ ]

"He will be welcome at this White House", President Bush's Press Secretary boldly stated!  This statement was a huge signal to the homosexual activists that the Bush White House is so sympathetic to their position that the President had just appointed a radical homosexual activist and had given him instant and constant access!

Even though Mr. Fleischer did not say what credentials made Scott Evertz so valuable to this position, Robert Knight observed:  "Evertz has no background in HIV research or other medical expertise surrounding the deadly virus."  So, this revelation does beg the question again, does it not?  What credentials does Mr. Evertz possess that make him the best candidate to fill the position of Homosexual Czar?


"President Clinton had earned homosexual plaudits when he issued his executive order barring consideration of “sexual orientation” in the issuance of top-level security clearances. While many hoped President Bush would restore a higher level of security by reversing the Clinton order, it was not to be. Bush recently reinforced the Clinton order through his own U.S. State Department declaring that open homosexuality is not a security risk. A State Department memo declared, 'Sexual orientation, in and of itself, may not be used as a disqualifying factor in determining a person’s eligibility for a security clearance'.  This flies in the face of well-established security risk assessment standards." [Ibid. Emphasis was in the original]

No kidding!  I can tell you from my days in U.S. Army Intelligence that homosexuality was considered to be such a security risk that practice of this lifestyle would automatically exclude a person from holding the kind of security clearance that would give its holder access to really sensitive state information.  We were taught that the reason for this position was that Communist agents would secretly lure the homosexual into sexually compromising situations, and then tape the incident for blackmailing purposes! Thus, we were horrified when we heard President Clinton ruling that homosexuality was not a security risk.  Former FBI White House officer, Gary Aldrich, understood this policy quite well.  Clinton's action in this area was one of the reasons Aldrich wrote his best-seller, "Unlimited Access"; the very book title showed Aldrich's understanding that Clinton had literally thrown the security doors wide open with his many policies, not the least of which was this insane policy allowing homosexuals to have high security clearances. History records that the Clinton Administration suffered the most grievous losses of intelligence of any administration in post-World War II history.

Therefore, we Christian and Conservative Republicans were most anxious to get one of our own into the White House, so he could at least plug this gaping hole in our security net, to prevent the loss of any future secrets.  However, now we find out that Bush not only did not reverse the Clinton policy, but instituted his own approval of homosexuals holding the highest of security clearances!

Robert Knight continues with his unbelievable news story, turning his attention to the United Nations:

"The Bush administration also supported a homosexual activist organization’s request for official United Nations consultative status. Rick Williams, an advisor to the U.S. Mission to the U.N., spoke in favor of the International Lesbian and Gay Association’s (ILGA) application for 'non-governmental organization' (NGO) status with the international body’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). In an interview, Williams said he 'did not receive any guidance to the contrary' on his recommendation. The application was put on hold by several Muslim countries concerned about ILGA’s homosexual advocacy.  ILGA, an umbrella group, gained notoriety in 1993 when it was revealed that the pedophile organization NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) was one of its members. ILGA also shared some of NAMBLA’s goals: among its proclamations (since rescinded) was its anti-parent support for “the right of young people to sexual and social self-determination.” ILGA eventually expelled NAMBLA, but its U.N. consultative status was ended after the U.S. Senate passed an amendment that would have stripped $119 million in U.S. contributions to the world body unless American officials could certify that no U.N.-affiliated groups promote pedophilia."

President Bush supported this group to gain NGO status with the United Nations?  What nonsense is this?  The Bible clearly states God's eternal opposition to homosexuality, so no true Christian would ever support a gay group's application for NGO U.N. status!  Further, this group, ILGA, so supports sex with youngsters that, even after it distanced itself from the predatory Man/Love group, it still withdrew from the United Nations before it renounced its promotion of pedophilia!

This is extremely bad spiritual fruit, bringing Jesus' warning into sharp focus:  "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."

This fruit of pro-homosexual polices emanating from the Bush Administration is exceedingly "evil fruit"; therefore, by the Lord's own words, the fruit that is producing them must be considered an evil tree, a "corrupt tree".  Good trees cannot produce good fruit, while only corrupt trees produce corrupt fruit.  Therefore, is the Bush Administration "tree" to be considered a "corrupt tree"?

Robert Knight continues his expose' of the kind of homosexual activist group the Bush Administration is supporting:

"ILGA has a history of treating opposition to homosexual activity as a 'human rights' violation. The organization crusades against anti-sodomy laws in various countries, including the United States, and supports laws lowering the age of sexual consent for homosexuals. It supports the legalization of homosexual unions and fights military homosexual bans in countries like the United States and Turkey. ILGA also lobbies the U.N. and other world bodies to celebrate homosexuality, e.g., calling for the creation of an 'International Year of Lesbian and Gay People'.”

The next time you read or hear of a homosexual group fighting to make sodomy legal, or to allow teenage boys to be solicited, remember President Bush is cooperating with, and supporting the very groups that are actively trying to bring these ungodly, abominable practices to this country.


"Bill Clinton’s attempt in the early days of his first term to open up the military to avowed homosexuals was a defining moment in his presidency and a source of intense public criticism that contributed to the GOP takeover of Congress in 1994. After a standoff with Congress, Clinton retreated and issued his “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy barring open homosexuals in the armed forces. The administration’s loose guidelines are at odds with a stronger law banning homosexuality in the military, and actually have made it easier for 'closeted' homosexuals to stay in the military. But since George W. Bush had endorsed 'Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell' during the campaign, it was widely expected that the Clinton-congressional compromise would continue. But Bush’s Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, appointed a veteran homosexual activist, Stephen Herbits, to 'screen job applicants' at the Pentagon. Herbits was hired as a “special consultant to the Secretary” of a department that officially bans homosexual soldiers.  Human Events Online reports: “In a 1993 book review for the New York Times on the topic of homosexuals in the military, Herbits wrote: ‘No single issue more poignantly snaps our armed forces into the 21st century than the question of whether homosexuals should be permitted to serve openly in their ranks. Our military cannot afford to stray long from the society it defends; the pressures for it to catch up are mounting within and without."

In other words, even though Congressional law still prohibits homosexuals from joining the military policy, George W. Bush's Secretary of Defense set up a liaison position to "screen job applicants" at the Pentagon?  Everyone would immediately get the message that the president was openly supportive of gays in the military.  Actions do speak louder than words!


"Former Missouri Sen. John Ashcroft, a staunch conservative and committed Christian, was nominated for Attorney General. But during his confirmation hearings, Ashcroft apparently bowed to administration pressure by downplaying his long-held opposition to homosexuality. He accepted the concept of “sexual orientation” as a civil rights category and discussed it in terms championed by homosexual activists."  [Robert Knight, Ibid.] 

I have real trouble with this revelation, i.e., that Ashcroft has abandoned his "fervent" Christian values.  But, if he did abandon his Christian values that led him to "long-held opposition to homosexuality", notice why he did so.  He abandoned his long-held opposition to homosexuality because of "administration pressure"; since Ashcroft is a full-fledged member of the President's Cabinet, the only "administration" person that could force him to abandon a position on anything is President George W. Bush.  So, this article is stating that the president forced Aschcroft to abandon his "long-held opposition to homosexuality".  But, if George W. were truly Born Again, how can he be forcing Ashcroft to abandon his opposition to the gay lobby? 

Once again, we find that actions do not match rhetoric, nor does actual performance in office match the expectations that preceded the taking of the office.

If Attorney General Ashcroft was forced by the president to backtrack on his stand against homosexuality, we should expect that he would do so grudgingly.  We would expect he would support the gay agenda so tentatively that the activists would complain mightily about his minimum effort.  Right? 

Now, let us go back to Robert Knight, for a big surprise:

"Like Bush, Ashcroft has earned the tentative praise of homosexual activists. Log Cabin Republicans,  a homosexual activist group, declared in a February 22 news release: 'In his confirmation testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, [Sen. John] Ashcroft stated repeatedly that sexual orientation will not be a consideration in Justice Department employment or appointments, that he would enforce all laws and regulations protecting gay and lesbian federal workers from employment discrimination, that the gay and lesbian DOJ [Department of Justice] Pride employee organization would continue to meet and organize in the department under his leadership, and that federal civil rights laws will be vigorously enforced. Following his confirmation, Ashcroft chose the Log Cabin Republicans for his first official public meeting as the nation’s chief law enforcer—a move that lent legitimacy to a group organized around sexual misconduct that is still illegal in almost 20 states and is considered sinful by all major Christian denominations."

To make a point as to his planned vigorous support of the homosexual agenda, Ashcroft  "chose the Log Cabin Republicans for his first official public meeting as the nation’s chief law enforcer—a move that lent legitimacy to a group organized around sexual misconduct that is still illegal in almost 20 states and is considered sinful by all major Christian denominations."

How can this be?  How can George W. Bush force John Ashcroft to plan his first official meeting as Attorney General to be with the fervently gay Log Cabin Republicans ?  Every gay-lesbian activist in the entire country -- and probably the entire world -- would look at this symbolism and rightly conclude that they continue to have a friend in the White House and a friend heading the Justice Department!

Let us take a moment away from the revelations of Robert Knight to consider another, and more recent, new story, this one from the Family Research Council, no less!

NEWS BRIEF:  "Gay Ambassador Troubles Embassy Staff", Family Research Council, [FRC] January 10, 2002.

"Little attention was drawn to Michael Guest's homosexual relationship with  his 'partner' during his confirmation process as President Bush's  ambassador to Romania.  However, those working under Guest in Bucharest now  find it difficult to avoid his flaunting of the relationship, according to  an American embassy worker who recently spoke with FRC. Although Guest had been active in a gay and lesbian group within the State  Department, he was not publicly identified as being homosexual until his  swearing-in on September 18, when Secretary of State Colin Powell  acknowledged Guest's 'partner', Alex Nevarez, during the  ceremony.  Nevarez, a former teacher, relocated to Romania with Guest and   now lives with him there in the residence provided to the ambassador by the  U.S.  government."

This story is unbelievable!  If President Bush wanted to nominate a homosexual as Ambassador to Romania, he did not have to openly flaunt this fact during the swearing-in ceremony.  Secretary of State Powell did not have to invite the sexual partner to the ceremony; he certainly did not have to go out of his way to call attention to the fact that Michael Guest was a practicing homosexual, nor did he have to introduce his 'partner'!  To do so is to send a strong signal to anyone opposed to homosexuality that they could just go "take a long walk off a short pier"!  Powell was telling the Christian Right in no uncertain terms that their sensibilities and their values were of no interest to him, or to the Bush Administration!

Now, let us go back to this FRC article:

"According to our source, several families in the embassy community have  expressed concern about the ambassador's living arrangement, and at least one will no longer bring their children to embassy social events because  they do not want them exposed to the example set by Guest and his  'partner'. For example, Guest and Nevarez escorted one another as a couple  at the embassy's annual Marine Corps Ball, a highly formal event.  'It's  causing me to have to compromise the values I raise my family by', the  source said."

"The appointment of Guest to serve in Romania showed a particular cultural  insensitivity, given that the country is a stronghold of the conservative Eastern Orthodox Church.  Our source indicated that the Orthodox Church is  represented at virtually all government ceremonies in Romania.  One  Romanian professor, in a letter to a Bucharest daily newspaper, said that  'Romanins .  .  .  cannot comprehend homosexual acts in any other way but  as a deviation from the natural order and the world created by the Lord',  and he noted that the Guest appointment 'generates bewilderment, indignation, and disgust among the Romanians'.

This Family Research Council article continues: 

"Ambassador Guest's treatment of same-sex 'partners' (including his own) as  the equivalent of married spouses is a mere half step away from government  endorsement of 'same-sex marriage'. Not only does this violate the spirit of the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act (which defines marriage as  being between one man and one woman), but it is also a distraction from the important work of our embassy in Romania."

At least some lower level Bush staffers understand, which is a lot more than a lot of Christians today.  Now, let us return to our original article with Robert Knight for one last revelation.


"Another Bush confidant with significant pro-homosexual credentials is GOP strategist Mary Matalin, who is senior advisor to both President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Matalin has adopted an increasingly strident position in favor of the Republican Party embracing homosexuality. Although she concedes that conservative Christians are good-hearted people, Matalin has demonized them by referring to religious critics of homosexual activism as 'gay bashers' and 'the Leviticus crowd'.  Matalin also is reportedly a leading force behind another pro-homosexual GOP group, the Republican Unity Coalition (RUC), which purports to be an alliance between homosexual and non-homosexual political leaders who want to end the GOP’s defense of traditional sexual morality. The day before Bush’s inauguration, Matalin was listed as a member of the Host Committee of a RUC breakfast, according to a press release by the group. One of RUC’s stated goals is to lobby for 'a more moderate approach to gay and lesbian issues' in the GOP."  [Ibid.]

How could President Bush allow a close confidant to be a homosexual, and how could he allow her to demonize and pillory the very Conservative Christians with whom Bush claims to be associated?  My mind is simply boggling now, as we see evidences piling up exceedingly high that Bush is not only allowing the homosexual agenda to continue as it did under Clinton, but that he seems to be actively supportive of such agenda. 

What did my Daddy used to say?  "Birds of a feather flock together". 

Or what does the Bible say:  "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?  And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? ... Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you." [2 Corinthians 6:14-15, 17].

When President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft openly and closely cooperate with homosexual activists to promote their ungodly agenda, they are literally "unequally yoked together with unbelievers".  They are literally joining the forces of Belial with the Church of Jesus Christ!  No truly Born Again believer would ever, ever take these kinds of actions, would never appoint such people to these kinds of high places of authority, and would never, ever have a close counselor be a lesbian.

Truly, Jesus was correct when He made two prophesies concerning the End of the Age:

"So also it was the same as it was in the days of Lot ... But on the very day that Lot went out of Sodom, it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all.  That is the way it will be on the day that the Son of Man is revealed." [Luke 17:28-30; Parallel Bible, KJV/Amplified Bible Commentary]

While most scholars agree that this verse is talking about God's rapid and unforeseen destruction at the End of the Age being the same as the judgment that fell on Sodom, others believe a secondary prophetic meaning was intended.  These scholars believe that Jesus was also saying that homosexuality would come as completely out in the open as it was in the days of Sodom.  I believe this secondary meaning to be correct; therefore, the very fact that homosexuality is coming completely out of the closet, and is being rapidly promoted by Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush is further evidence that we are at the End of the Age.

My only surprise is that this open promotion of homosexuality is being carried out by Christian Bush!

""Let no one delude and deceive you with empty excuses and groundless arguments for these sins, for through these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of rebellion and disobedience."  [Ephesians 5:6, Amplified Bible Commentary

Do not be deceived, understanding that spiritual deception is THE hallmark characteristic of the End of the Age.  Listen to Jesus' prophecy:  "Be careful that no one misleads you, deceiving you and leading into error." [Matthew 24:4; warning against spiritual deception repeated in verses 11 and 24].  Truly, spiritual deception is running rampant today.  Truly, this is the End of the Age.



Are you spiritually ready? Is your family? Are you adequately protecting your loved ones? This is the reason for this ministry, to enable you to first understand the peril facing you, and then help you develop strategies to warn and protect your loved ones. Once you have been thoroughly trained, you can also use your knowledge as a means to open the door of discussion with an unsaved person. I have been able to use it many times, and have seen people come to Jesus Christ as a result. These perilous times are also a time when we can reach many souls for Jesus Christ, making an eternal difference.

If you have accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Savior, but have been very lukewarm in your spiritual walk with Him, you need to immediately ask Him for forgiveness and for renewal. He will instantly forgive you, and fill your heart with the joy of the Holy Spirit. Then, you need to begin a daily walk of prayer and personal Bible Study.

If you have never accepted Jesus Christ as Savior, but have come to realize His reality and the approaching End of the Age, and want to accept His FREE Gift of Eternal Life, you can also do so now, in the privacy of your home. Once you accept Him as Savior, you are spiritually Born Again, and are as assured of Heaven as if you were already there. Then, you can rest assured that the Kingdom of Antichrist will not touch you spiritually.

If you would like to become Born Again, turn to our Salvation Pagenow.

We hope you have been blessed by this ministry, which seeks to educate and warn people, so that they can see the coming New World Order -- Kingdom of Antichrist -- in their daily news.

Finally, we would love to hear from you.

You can contact us by mail or email.

God bless you.

Subscribe to our email updates and messages from our editor by entering your email address below
Return to: