Chuck Baldwin Asks Christians, "Is President Bush Really One of Us?"

Chuck Baldwin Ministries ^ | 10-24-03 | Baldwin, Chuck

[Theodore R.]

Is President Bush Really "One Of Us?"

By Chuck Baldwin

Food For Thought From The Chuck Wagon

October 24, 2003 As Jimmy Carter had done before him, G.W. Bush won the White House, in part, due to his Christian profession. Christians nationwide regard President Bush as "one of us." They believe that he shares their Christian principles and values.

Why, then, does President Bush use the power of his office to publicly condemn those Christians who courageously champion Christian principles? Time and again, President Bush has publicly repudiated the statements or actions of principled Christians as they attempted to stand for their convictions.

Back in 2002, Bush publicly chastised a former president of the Southern Baptist Convention, Rev. Jerry Vines, for his truthful remarks regarding Islam. Vines said, "Islam is not just as good as Christianity." He also rightly said, "Allah is not Jehovah." These remarks brought a swift and stern rebuke from the White House.

Likewise, when Jerry Falwell suggested that the terrorist attacks in 2001 may have been God's judgment upon America (they very well could have been), the White House immediately pronounced its vehement disagreement and displeasure. Dr. Falwell quickly apologized.

However, the most egregious example of Bush's animosity toward outspoken Christians is his handling of the Judge Roy Moore case in Alabama. Not only did President Bush publicly condemn Judge Moore, he either sent or allowed his chief political consultant Karl Rove to spearhead the attack against him.

While it was the ACLU that initially filed the legal case against Judge Moore, it was the White House that was willing to feed Judge Moore to the wolves by the surreptitious, behind-the-scenes maneuverings of Rove.

It was Karl Rove who managed the campaign of Judge Moore's principal opponent in the race for Supreme Court Chief Justice. Furthermore, it appears that Rove is privately managing Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor's prosecution of Judge Moore with the goal of putting Pryor on the federal bench. And now another outspoken Christian patriot is in the Bush crosshairs. His name is Lt. Gen. William Boykin.

In speeches before Christian gatherings, General Boykin committed a cardinal breach of political correctness by affirming that America is "a Christian nation." He also rightly observed that many Muslim terrorists hate America because we are a Christian nation. Predictably, these remarks have brought out the ire and chastisement of President Bush.

After learning of the general's remarks, Bush quickly appeared before a Muslim audience in Indonesia and soundly rebuked his statements. He said, "He (General Boykin) didn't reflect my opinion. Look, it (Boykin's remarks) just doesn't reflect what the (U.S.) government thinks."

By Bush's own words, he doesn't believe America is a Christian nation. Beyond that, he chose to stand alongside Muslims overseas when rebuking a Christian Army general who is proudly and faithfully serving his country and his Commander-in-Chief. It is painfully obvious that President Bush is willing to sacrifice any and all Christian patriots on the altar of political correctness.

It is one thing for President Bush to constantly distance himself from Christian convictions and doctrines. He wouldn't be the first President to do so. It is quite another thing, however, for Christians throughout America to continue to give him a pass for his many foibles under the charade that he is "one of us."

© Chuck Baldwin

[Graybeard58]

"President Bush use the power of his office to publicly condemn those Christians who courageously champion Christian principles"


...Damn lie number one. Didn't bother to read further.

[Torie]

Your cribbing from the Torie Plan. The idea is to come up with something that is fair, rewards those that play by the rules, selects in those who have the right stuff, and selects out those that are looking for a more generous social safety net, and, and this is the biggie, addresses the underlying economic pressures. Economics when the forces are powerful enough, trumps the law each and every time.

Economics should be a mandatory course in all high schools, at least for those few students who have learned to read texts with comprehension more complex than Dick and Jane.

[Torie]

Why don't you just come out and make your case, stringing together a few sentences that you typed yourself? Why are you being so coy?

[alnick]

You've been misinformed. If you're interested in what the PBA really says, you can find what MM left out of his post here:

http://capwiz.com/nrlc/webreturn/?url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.3:

[Torie]

Sorry I am mixing up matters and posters here a bit. Ignore my last post. I hate when that happens.

[F.J. Mitchell]

Ditto!

[TexKat]

Excuse me but Mr. Ryan could it possibly be the way that you have your font and styles set on your computer. Because rbd3's post is comes across clear on my computer and I am able to follow right along without any confusion. And he has posted no different than anyone else. He applys his logo, but then others do also. Have a nice night.

[steve-b]

Is President Bush Really One of Us?

No, Chuck, President Bush is not one of your loonie-bin clique.

Next question?

[alnick]

Well, the poster claimed that the bill only allows killing babies in head-first deliveries as PBA, but it also includes breach birth deliveries -- in other words, it covers all instances in which the infant is murdered.

[F.J. Mitchell]

Chuck Baldwin should have left the country like Alec Baldwin did when Bush was elected. Alec did keep his word.......didn't he?

[Bob J]

Click Here for the RadioFR website!

Tonight on Radio FreeRepublic

Unspun with AnnaZ
October 23rd, 2003 -- 10pmE/7pmP

"At least when right-wingers rant, there's a point!"

Click HERE to listen LIVE while you FReep!

Would you like to receive a note when RadioFR is on the air? Send an email to radiofreerepublic-subscribe@radioactive.kicks-ass.net!

Click HERE to chat in the RadioFR chat room!

[alnick]

Typed myself? I copied and pasted directly from the bill and included the link.

[Torie]

The post I made embarrasses me. Where are the mods?

[alnick]

'sall right. It happens to all of us. :-)

I was just upset that someone is making a totally false claim in order to discredit the PBA ban and I'm trying to reply to everyone on this thread who seemed to believe what the poster wrote.

[deport]

No, there is more. He omitted it. Here is a link to the rest of the story:

---

Explain what the more is and what is its impact upon what MM posted.....

[MississippiMan]

Why the elipses? Why did you omit the rest of it? Could it be because what follows the elipses disproves your allegation?

Good grief. I posted the relevant portion of the text, nothing more, nothing less.

I'd love for Bush to be a great conservative. He's not. It's really just that simple, and this is but one more confirmation of that IMO. He's still better than having a dang Clinton or Gore in the White House and I'm still thankful he's there, but he's NOT a conservative. Accept the blatant and obvious truth. This is what he chose to push through after three years.

Someone said they thought a head-first presentation would involve the entire head out. Not being argumentative--seriously--but I'm almost certain I've read articles about PBA before that state they only deliver enough of the head to expose their "optimum" area of the skull to puncture for suction. (It's so hideous that I honestly feel kinda clammy even typing a description of it.)Common sense says this narrow description is in the bill for a reason. And one thing's for sure: it would certainly be legal to ram something through the top of the baby's skull just as soon as it crowns. As I already mentioned, if the intent was to truly ban it, the language would be SO simple: Just write it to say "any portion of the fetal head outside the body of the mother." There's NO reason not to word it that way if you truly want to ban the procedure, for PBA is the only type of abortion that involves delivering any portion of the baby at all before murdering it.

MM

[Qwinn]

Bush is saying what he did because Bush, rather wisely, is not prepared to wage war against 1.2 billion people.

But unless I am very mistaken, Bush did -not- condemn Boykin for speaking in a church (and if Clinton can hold rallies for Gray Davis in churches, Boykin should be able to say whatever he wants in a church). What he said, paraphrased, is "We disagree with what Boykin said. That is not the position of the government." Nor should it be.

Much as some here might like it, you can't condemn the religion of Islam wholesale as governmental policy, not unless you want to put us in a situation where we are forced to kill 1.2 billion people.

As for the amnesty question that was referred to - I would accept amnesty ONLY IF the borders were completely secured first with something every bit as tight as a 20 foot high wall. If we were to build a wall or something similar and then say "Okay, if you made it in prior to now, fine, you can stay. No one else gets in.", I could live with that. To declare an amnesty while the border is still completely porous... I would have a serious problem with it.

Qwinn

[TexKat]

Are you PMsing. Midols are good for that.

[alnick]

Okay, MM alleged that the PBA ban is worthless because he claimed that the definition of PBA in the bill only applies to instances in which the head is completely outside of the woman's body. He then lifted a partial quote that states pretty much was he alleges, but he left out the rest of the language which shows that what MM alleges in the only definition of PBA is but one. The language in the act goes on to say that in head-first births, the head must be out of the mother's body, but it also covers breach births. I copied and pasted what he omitted, along with a link to the bill.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:5:./temp/~c108tN88aw::