Posted on 10/23/2003 2:21:49 PM PDT by 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
I'm curious, when exactly did your forefathers arrive?
They fully support it.
We have gained significant ground under president Bush in the Right to Life war, including the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.
Don't allow malcontents to turn victories into defeats.
| TIMELINE OF IMMIGRATION TO U.S. 1815-1950 | ||
| 1815: | The first great wave of immigration begins, bringing 5 million immigrants between 1815 and 1860. | |
| 1818: | Liverpool becomes the most-used port of departure for Irish and British immigrants. | |
| 1819: | The first federal legislation on immigration requires notation of passenger lists. | |
| 1820: | The U.S. population is about 9.6 million. About 151,000 new immigrants arrive in 1820 alone. | |
| 1825: | Great Britain decrees that England is overpopulated and repeals laws prohibiting emigration. The first group of Norwegian immigrants arrive. | |
| 1846-7: | Crop failures in Europe. Mortgage foreclosures send tens of thousands of the dispossessed to United States. | |
| 1846: | Irish of all classes emigrate to the United States as a result of the potato famine. | |
| 1848: | German political refugees emigrate following the failure of a revolution. | |
| 1862: | The Homestead Act encourages naturalization by granting citizens title to 160 acres. | |
| 1875: | First limitations on immigration. Residency permits required of Asians. | |
| 1880: | The U.S. population is 50,155,783. More than 5.2 million immigrants enter the country between 1880 and 1890. | |
| 1882: | Chinese exclusion law is established. Russian anti-Semitism prompts a sharp rise in Jewish emigration. | |
| 1890: | New York is home to as many Germans as Hamburg, Germany. | |
| 1891: | The Bureau of Immigration is established. Congress adds health qualifications to immigration restrictions. | |
| 1892: | Ellis Island replaces Castle Garden. | |
| 1894-6: | To escape Moslem massacres, Armenian Christians emigrate. | |
| 1897: | Pine-frame buildings on Ellis Island are burned to the ground in a disastrous fire. | |
| 1900: | The U.S. population is 75,994,575. More than 3,687,000 immigrants were admitted in the previous ten years. Ellis Island receiving station reopens with brick and ironwork structures. | |
| 1906: | Bureau of Immigration is established. | |
| 1910: | The Mexican Revolution sends thousands to the United States seeking employment. | |
| 1914-8: | World War I halts a period of mass migration to the United States. | |
| 1921: | The first quantitave immigration law sets temporary annual quotas according to nationality. Immigration drops off. | |
| 1924: | The National Origins Act establishes a discriminatory quota system. The Border Patrol is established. | |
| 1940: | The Alien Registration Act calls for registration and fingerprinting of all aliens. Approximately 5 million aliens register. | |
| 1946: | The War Brides Act facilitates the immigration of foreign-born wives, fiances, husbands, and children of U.S. Armed Forces personnel. | |
| 1952: | The Immigration and Naturalization Act brings into one comprehensive statute the multiple laws that govern immigration and naturalization to date. | |
| 1954: | Ellis Island closes, marking an end to mass immigration | |
Barf is right.
No it doesn't, read it slowly again and picture in your mind what it it's describing. All it prohibits is killing the baby after either the head is completely outside the mother's body, or in the case of a breech birth, after the lower half or the body is outside the mother. In the head-first position the baby's head can still be punctured through the top of the skull as soon as the top is exposed and before the lower part of the head emerges. That will cerainly kill it even though the brain is not removed. In a breech birth the baby can still be legally killed as long as the upper half of the body above the navel has not passed out of the mother's body. I'm not a doctor but I have no doubt that a baby can be killed while in that position, it just may be a bit harder to do than simply stabbing a scissor blade into it's skull as in the normal head first position.
Maybe an injecton of some kind will now be used to kill a half-born breech-baby. I'm not a doctor or a pharmacist so I don't know what that injected substance would be, but I'm sure any doctor would know of several. Or perhaps a femural artery could be severed and the baby allowed to bleed to death while still half-born. I'm not even a doctor and I can think of a half-dozen ways a baby in that position could be killed, and none of those are banned by this bill. I fully agree with MM, if this was a meaningful PBA ban the wording would be such that no PBA could be performed by any means. The bill as written allows pro-abortion judges to easily poke holes in it the size of a Mack truck. The so-called "ban" may force the PB abortionists to slightly modify their usual manner of killing partially born babies, but be assured it won't stop any resourceful baby killer from earning his blood money.
In fairness to the Pubs this gutless PBA bill is probably all that could realistically make it through the current Senate as it stands now, and to be sure it does at least make a statement in support of ending PBA. But in effect it's still a hollow sham, IMHO designed primarily to pass the Senate and to make pro-lifers think something meaningful has been acomplished by GOP Senators when the next election rolls around. Judging by the respones to MM's post it seems to be working pretty well.
His political handlers seem to think getting the muslim vote is critical to his re-election. They just take it for granted that all good little Christian conservatives will vote GOP no matter what is said or done, just as we have since Reagan's time. You know their reasoning, "where else are they gonna go?"
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm becoming extremely tired of being taken for granted. I will never vote Democrat, but there's no law that says I have to vote for anyone of any party.
bttt for later ...
Christians will just have to turn Democrats in the next election.
When H*ll freezes over.
BUMP
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.