President Bush's approval rating drops to 38%

[Soldier4Christ]

Isn't its tagline the "Conservative Journal of Record"?

Yep, right along with, "The Internet's leading journal on Federalism and the Founders."

Thats what makes it "a Christian publication to inform Christians about politics and government."

 

[nChrist]

Isn't its tagline the "Conservative Journal of Record"?

DUH!?

The Christian Founding Fathers were conservatives, and so are the Christians of today. Nearly all Christian publications are conservative. GOD never said "Anything goes", and neither do Christians who love and respect GOD.

So, I am absolutely amazed. I can't imagine why nearly ALL Christian publications are conservative. It's a real MYSTERY!

[Shammu]

Wow, you beat me there - no way am I going to subject myself to reading that long of an article from a source of Bush administration propaganda.  For one, you might refer to a reputable source of news; second, highlights and a link would be much more conducive to a healthy debate.  Blaming local residents is exactly the type of ridiculous political shift the blame approach that the Bush administration campaign led by Karl Rove is pushing.  Totally disgraceful.

That tells everone how uninformed you are.

Think about it in these terms . . . mantaining a levee; not something that a local resident can do.  Preparing for a disaster of this scale that has been expected for years requires Federal action.  The Bush budget cut funding for projects to prepare for this problem with the levees!  Also, who was most effected by this disaster?  The poor.  As Christians, the plight of the poor is something that should be of interest to all of us.  Another example of Bush's failures: Under the Bush administration the poverty rate has increased every year and under Clinton the poverty rate declined every year.

Well you know, when you live in that type of area. That is below sea level you will have problems.

Environmentalist activists were responsible for spiking a plan that may have saved New Orleans. Decades ago, the Green Left pursuing its agenda of valuing wetlands and topographical “diversity” over human life – sued to prevent the Army Corps of Engineers from building floodgates that would have prevented significant flooding that resulted from Hurricane Katrina.

Why was this project aborted? As the Times-Picayune wrote, “Those plans were abandoned after environmental advocates successfully sued to stop the projects as too damaging to the wetlands and the lake's eco-system.”  Specifically, in 1977, a state environmentalist group known as Save Our Wetlands (SOWL) sued to have it stopped. SOWL stated the proposed Rigolets and Chef Menteur floodgates of the Lake Pontchartrain Hurricane Prevention Project would have a negative effect on the area surrounding Lake Pontchartrain. Further, SOWL’s recollection of this case demonstrates they considered this move the first step in a perfidious design to drain Lake Pontchartrain entirely and open the area to dreaded capitalist investment.

On December 30, 1977, U.S. District Judge Charles Schwartz Jr. issued an injunction against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Lake Pontchartrain hurricane protection project, demanding the engineers draw up a second environmental impact statement, three years after the corps submitted the first one. In one of the most ironic pronouncements of all time, Judge Schwartz wrote, “it is the opinion of the Court that plaintiffs herein have demonstrated that they, and in fact all persons in this area, will be irreparably harmed if the barrier project based upon the August, 1974 FEIS federal environmental impact statement is allowed to continue.”

If the Greens prevailed, it was not because the forces of common sense did not make a compelling case. SOWL’s account reveals that during the course of the trial the defense counsel, Gerald Gallinghouse – a Republican U.S. Attorney who acted as a special prosecutor during the Carter administration – felt so strongly that the project should continue that he told the judge he would “go before the United States Congress with Democratic Louisiana Congressman F. Edward Hebert to pass a resolution, exempting the Hurricane Barrier Project from the rules and regulations of the National Environmental Policy Act because, in his opinion, [this plan] is necessary to protect the citizens of New Orleans from a hurricane.” Despite this, the judge ruled in favor of the environmentalists. Ultimately, the project was aborted in favor of building up existing levees.

In 1977, plans for hurricane protection structures at the Rigolets and Chef Menteur Pass were sunk when environmental groups sued the district. They believed that the environmental impact statement did not adequately address several potential problems, including impacts on Lake Pontchartrain’s ecosystem and damage to wetlands.

New Orleans Levees Not Designed for Storm
September 5th, 2005 @ 1:17am

By MARY DALRYMPLE
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Projects designed to keep New Orleans from flooding in a hurricane prepared the city for a probable scenario, not the worst-case scenario. The network that was supposed to protect the below-sea-level city from flooding was built to withstand a Category 3 hurricane, the Army Corps of Engineers said. It was overwhelmed when Katrina's winds and storm surge came ashore a week ago as a Category 4 storm.

That has left some lawmakers wondering why officials only considered the consequences of a moderate storm.

"What that, in essence, says is that you're not going to worry about the biggest disasters that could occur, you're only going to worry about the smaller ones," said Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee.

"How many times do we have to see disaster overwhelm our preparedness before we recognize that we are playing Russian roulette with people's lives, with their livelihoods and with the life of whole communities?"

Louisiana lawmakers have long lamented that Corps of Engineers programs designed to protect New Orleans and surrounding areas were starved for cash.

Corps officials, said, however, that funneling more money into the agency's levee repair programs wouldn't have totally averted disaster. The infrastructure around the city was designed to withstand only a Category 3.

Lt. Gen. Carl Strock, Corps of Engineers commander, said some flooding would have occurred even if the remaining repair projects planned for the levees had been completed.

The infrastructure assumed that a storm bigger than a Category 3 has a very low probability of occurring.

When the project was designed about 30 years ago, the corps believed it was protecting the city from an event that might occur only every 200 or 300 years.

"We had an assurance that 99.5 percent this would be OK. We, unfortunately, have had that .5 percent activity here," Strock said.

Former Sen. John Breaux, D-La., said everyone has known for years that the levees wouldn't stop a "once every hundred years" storm that could put New Orleans under 20 feet of water.

The complaints and problems with corps funding go back to the Carter administration, and presidents since then have tried to draw money from the agency's projects to pay for other priorities.

Mike Parker, a former Mississippi congressman who left as civilian head of the corps in 2002 after criticizing the White House budget office, said the funding problems occurred through Democratic and Republican administrations.

"The corps requested money to complete the projects through the years, but the funding level wasn't given to them in order to do it," he said.

It's the Bush administration taking the brunt of the heat now.

House Majority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said New Orleans got an infusion of money for flood control projects in the late 1990s.

"There was less money spent after that huge project, as, of course, there would be," Blunt said. "Any time you do a big building project, when that project's over, the next year you spend less money."

Blunt suggested there might be a limit to the amount that federal programs can do.

"This is not something that government can always prevent," he said. "You know, God is actually bigger and nature is bigger than we are, and this is one of those instances."

Two Corps of Engineers projects were in place to control flooding and prepare for hurricane damage in southern Louisiana. One was a flood control project with channel and pumping station improvements for Southeast Louisiana; the other was a project to protect residents between Lake Pontchartrain and the Mississippi River levee from surges driven by a fast-moving category 3 storm.

Each year since 2001, the corps asked for much more money for those two projects than the Bush administration was willing to request or Congress was willing to spend, according to figures compiled by Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La.

In addition, funding for the two programs declined between fiscal years 2001 and 2004, although both saw slight increases this year. Much of the federal budget outside homeland security and defense has been held down while the administration tries to control deficits under control.

Advocates also have pressed for money to restore the eroding Louisiana coastline as additional hurricane protection.

In the future, Breaux said, the federal government must think about a system of levees designed for the once-a-century storm.

"They're going to have to be built stronger. They're going to have to be built higher. They're going to have to be maintained," he said.

"It looks like Baghdad underwater out there."
New Orleans Levees Not Designed for Storm

FC, if you would spend more time reading information, then blaming you would be okay. As you said earlier, theres enough blame for all the local goverment.

Resting in the Lords hands.
Bob

2 Peter 3:14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

[Florida_Catholic]

Believe it or not, God is not a Republican either.  I've spent many many hours watching the news, reading about, and researching my questions about Katrina and the many other government failures we've discussed.  That's why I've been able to respond with facts to each one of the myths you've proposed.  If you get all your news from a self proclaimed conservative source, do you see how you wouldn't be able to get a fair and balanced view of who's done what wrong.  This may be a stretch, but don't you think that the conservatives would be eager to blame the liberals rather than blame themselves?

And obviously liberals don't say "anything goes" or whatever other kinds of silly accussations you might make to help you categorize us as bad people who don't respect God.  For example, liberals don't support an elective war that kills tens of thousands of innocent people.  Liberals don't support the pollution and destruction of the Earth.  Liberals don't support letting corporate criminals off easy.  Liberals don't support bailing out failing megacorporations with taxpayer dollars.  Also, liberals believe that reducing the poverty rate is actually something that government should be interested in, while conservatives support an irresponsible tax cut to make the wealthy wealthier.

This President's "compassionate conservatism" is harming this country and has led to an unacceptable list of failures and hardly comprises a morally driven approach.

[Soldier4Christ]

And obviously liberals don't say "anything goes" or whatever other kinds of silly accussations you might make to help you categorize us as bad people who don't respect God.  For example, liberals don't support an elective war that kills tens of thousands of innocent people.  Liberals don't support the pollution and destruction of the Earth.  Liberals don't support letting corporate criminals off easy.  Liberals don't support bailing out failing megacorporations with taxpayer dollars.  Also, liberals believe that reducing the poverty rate is actually something that government should be interested in, while conservatives support an irresponsible tax cut to make the wealthy wealthier.

Liberals do support the killing of inocent babies, they do support degenerates like homosexuals, they do support many tax increases that do hurt those in the poverty level while lining their pockets with a lot of cash. They do sit on their laurels instead of protecting their people while the WTC is bombed, the USS Cole is attacked and setting the U.S. up for 9/11. They do offer up tons of money to a school in Africa for computers that doesn't even have eletricity to run them. They do support taking Christianity out of the U.S. and replacing it with Islam.

It is beyond me how anyone that considers themselves Christian can honestly support them.

[Shammu]

This may be a stretch, but don't you think that the conservatives would be eager to blame the liberals rather than blame themselves?

As you yourself are doing. I can find many reports all blaming the President. What none of them do is blame, any local goverment (states.)

This President's "compassionate conservatism" is harming this country and has led to an unacceptable list of failures and hardly comprises a morally driven approach.

As apposed to a dummocat led country. Do you know that every major war has been started by a dummocat led goverment. I can remember when Ronald Regan was elected President. All the dummocats were upset by his election. They said he would run the country to ruin.  If I remember right, they also said he was the anti-christ.

It makes no difference who is elected, some one will always cry, over spilled milk. I vote for who will do the best job. I didn't vote for Kerry, who goes against everything I believe in. except it, they election is over your canidate lost. don't cry over spilled milk. Be apart of the solution, not the problem. Support the President, and troops.

Are you one of those that want the country split, as what Gore did to the country. Thats one of the reasons, Kerry lost. People do have long memories.

Also a note for you FC, I supported Carter, and Clinton even though my canidate lost. You need to do the same.

Resting in the hands, of the Lord.
Bob

Nehemiah 5:13 Also I shook my lap, and said, So God shake out every man from his house, and from his labour, that performeth not this promise, even thus be he shaken out, and emptied. And all the congregation said, Amen, and praised the LORD. And the people did according to this promise.

[Florida_Catholic]

Lots of twisted arguments, but one caught my eye.  I'm curious how you supported Clinton.  I'd like to learn more about that.  Was it similarly to your blind support of Bush, i.e. in spite of his failures - you believe he does no wrong, or was it more like how I supported Clinton, because of his many great successes?

[nChrist]

Lots of twisted arguments, but one caught my eye.  I'm curious how you supported Clinton.  I'd like to learn more about that.  Was it similarly to your blind support of Bush, i.e. in spite of his failures - you believe he does no wrong, or was it more like how I supported Clinton, because of his many great successes?

F_C,

I'll help you out some. Christians pray for leaders whether they were our candidate or not. Many prayed overtime for Clinton since he was a horrible role model for our children and caused America embarrassment with the entire world. One had to wonder moment by moment if he was stuck in a bordello or jail. I prayed for him several times per day, but I certainly didn't vote for him. When the election is over, the person is our leader whether we like them or not. Has anyone ever suggested to you that Christians pray for our leaders whether they were our candidate or not?

Your recent statements make me very curious, so I'll go ahead and ask:

Are you a Christian?

Do you pray for our leaders, including President Bush?

[Shammu]

 I'm curious how you supported Clinton.  I'd like to learn more about that.  Was it similarly to your blind support of Bush, i.e. in spite of his failures - you believe he does no wrong, or was it more like how I supported Clinton, because of his many great successes?

FC, I prayed for Clinton, even though he was a bad example for children. I never bad mouthed him, or protested against him. I supported him, and argued for him. He was the leader of the country, and deserved that support. I looked to his few good points, not the bad.

Now I have a question for you. Are you to blind to support, the United States, or are you against your country?

Resting in the hands, of the Lord.
Bob

John 12:40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

[Florida_Catholic]

You argued for him when the Republicans impeached him?  Now it seems like that's what you're alluding to by saying "I looked to his few good points, not the bad"  That may be true, and would be consistent with the way you're defending our current President after he's commited so many wrongs that make him such a horrible role model for our children.  However, I haven't come across many like you.

[Shammu]

You argued for him when the Republicans impeached him?

Yes, for the simple reason he was the President. Now, if you would answer my question.

Do you support, the United States, or are you against your country?

Resting in the hands, of the Lord.
Bob

Ezekiel 24:14 I the LORD have spoken it: it shall come to pass, and I will do it; I will not go back, neither will I spare, neither will I repent; according to thy ways, and according to thy doings, shall they judge thee, saith the Lord GOD.

[Florida_Catholic]

I think you're the first person I've met who has said that . . . but I've got to give you credit for being consistent.  What exactly did you say in Clinton's defense about the whole Lewinsky thing?

I support my country, but in a very different way.  I was against Clinton when he did bad stuff, and I'm against Bush now when he does even worse stuff much more often.  I think that's how democracy is successful, the citizens of the country have to discuss the issues, stand up and be heard, and vote their well-educated minds.  If we blindly support someone, whether it's because they belong to the Republican party - as seems to be the case with everyone I've spoken except you - or if it's just because this person is the President, we do what he says, we are ignoring our most critical responsibilities as citizens.  Blind support is what dictatorships like Saddam Hussein's are about, not what our founding fathers set up for this great nation.

[Shammu]

I think you're the first person I've met who has said that . . . but I've got to give you credit for being consistent.  What exactly did you say in Clinton's defense about the whole Lewinsky thing?

I felt he was guilty of adultery, though I didn"t voice out loud about it, I prayed instead. The one thing I didn't do, was judge him. I feel that God will address Clinton on that subject.

I support my country, but in a very different way.  I was against Clinton when he did bad stuff, and I'm against Bush now when he does even worse stuff much more often.  I think that's how democracy is successful, the citizens of the country have to discuss the issues, stand up and be heard, and vote their well-educated minds.  If we blindly support someone, whether it's because they belong to the Republican party - as seems to be the case with everyone I've spoken except you - or if it's just because this person is the President, we do what he says, we are ignoring our most critical responsibilities as citizens.  Blind support is what dictatorships like Saddam Hussein's are about, not what our founding fathers set up for this great nation.

And see, thats why you DON'T support America. Clinton still deserved your support. My comment right here is not judging you. you have already judged yourself.

I will tell you something else, I am a Christian first, a patroit second. The president deserved the support of the nation.

Resting in the hands, of the Lord.
Bob

Exodus 33:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, Depart, and go up hence, thou and the people which thou hast brought up out of the land of Egypt, unto the land which I sware unto Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, saying, Unto thy seed will I give it:

[nChrist]

F_C,

It appears that you are just a liberal on a Christian forum, so you answered my questions. I'll pray for you.

Tom

[JimmySwift]

Hi all,

Firstly, sorry for my absence.. I've been off travelling the world, and have been unable to make comments from the proverbial road.

Great debate here though.. I've really enjoyed reading it.

Just a few quick comments on some of the more recent comments:  I too beleive that president Bush is a poor leader, and has made many critical errors.  As such, and as a responsible member of a democratic nation, I do what I can to voice this displeasure.  When Clinton was in the wrong, I did the same.  This isn't to say that "I prayed for both and so can not be accused of not supporting either president", because such an argument is absurd.  I find it very hard to beleive that most of you arguing against FC were really behind Clinton, as you claim to have been.  But, guess what?  That's OK.. That's why we get the chance to vote, and no one is expecting you, or even asking you to support a guy who you feel is a poor president; i don't think you should expect me to do the same.  

As a cute game, just once, I would like to see BEP or DW say that Bush has perhaps dealt with at least one thing poorly during his reign.  Just for fun... You don't even really have to mean it if you don't want to, just humor me a little.

Pastor Roger, I've always thought you were a great sounding guy, and have a great deal of respect for many of your view.  However, with a comment like the one you made about liberals wanting to replace Christianity with Islam, really shocked me.  I thought you were much smarter than that, and substantially less prone to ridiculous rhetoric.

One last point would be the simple request that we not, as a collective group continually fall back to the apparant "Alamo" that is attacking the Christianity of others.  It's not something in which I feel we should indulge.

cheers,

Jimmy