Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Chuck Baldwin Asks Christians, "Is President Bush Really One of Us?"
Chuck Baldwin Ministries ^ | 10-24-03 | Baldwin, Chuck

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


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: boykin; bush; bushandgod; carter; christianity; falwell; jerryvines; muslims; persecution; politicalcorrectness; pryor; rove; roymoore; williamboykink
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-199 next last
To: MoJo2001
You said it!
161 posted on 10/24/2003 3:04:19 AM PDT by Pippin (GWB is my President!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Good morning
Thanks for the ping
...too early to get annoyed, so btrl
162 posted on 10/24/2003 4:59:03 AM PDT by firewalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing
Thank you, and may you enjoy Gods peace and protective blessings.
163 posted on 10/24/2003 8:30:46 AM PDT by TheGunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: MississippiMan; newgeezer
I think I've just become an ex-Republican. Only a marriage bill banning gay marriages will get me back to the voting booths.
164 posted on 10/24/2003 9:12:16 AM PDT by biblewonk (Spose to be a Chrisssssssstian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
My position is probably the same as his. I choose my religion and others choose theirs. If I can proselytize, and my attempts are welcomed, I will. Many times, like Paul, I have to shake the dust from my feet and move on. Then it becomes a passive and subtle evangelism by example, focusing on those I can reach, and staying aware for when unexpected opportunities arise.

But also recognizing that there are professional positions where direct evangalizing is not possible. Should Christians not take those jobs? Of course they should, because the visibility often allows them to evangelize by example and raise awareness of who good Christians really are. Such jobs also allow for networking, acquiring power, and becoming better able to serve for the goodwill of others. Christians are called to do far more than just evangelize, we are also called to serve. While we are not saved by works, works are an expression of our faith. "And they'll know we are Christians by our love." Love serves, aids, and works hard.

The Presidency is a job that leads a country of ALL residents, of ALL religions, who ALL have constitutionally guaranteed rights. He serves by treating others with respect. One can do that without compromising one's morals. Did not Jesus treat the woman at the well with respect? Sure, he threw the moneychangers out of the temple, and Bush is going after the terrorists, but Jesus didn't attack the unbeleiving just because they were unbelieving. He was tolerant, without compromising his message or morals, but reached people where they were at, through reasoning, compassion, and enticement, not anger and suppression. I think he can distinguish between a peaceful muslims(and there are plenty, ask Daniel Pipes) and an overzealous/threatening one. Perhaps if he were alive today he would be telling the parable of the Good Muslim.

Yet Bush never denies his faith, has used numerous subtle opportunities to note how it changed him, saved him, and influences his life, and lives by example. Right now he ministers through service, though neither you nor I know what his evangalistic efforts are in private, among his friends. Our concern is what he does with his position and in public, and so far I see nothing to criticize him about.

Remember how in the New Testament many of his followers were deeply disappointed that Jesus did not overthrow the Romans and establish an earthly kingdom? Sometimes in our zeal, we may want God to use people in ways different than want his plan is. Do I know God's plan for Bush? No, but I see little to criticize him about.
165 posted on 10/24/2003 9:25:20 AM PDT by Diddle E. Squat (www.firemackbrown.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Things were quite lax? Not as lax as now. My grandparents had to go through Ellis Island where they were screened for diseases and they could have been sent back to Denmark if they had not passed. How many legal immigrants are screened for diseases now? Of course, illegal aliens are not screened for diseases because they come here ILLEGALLY. Now this country is seeing a resurgence of diseases that we thought were eradicated. Leprosy for example. Incurable strains of tuberculosis. And I'm sure there are lots of others. It would seem to me that any sensible person would see the need to protect the health of people already living in this country.
166 posted on 10/24/2003 9:59:52 AM PDT by vikingcelt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: TheGunny
Thank you ! ...

167 posted on 10/24/2003 10:10:20 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP (Check out the Texas Chicken D 'RATS!: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/keyword/Redistricting)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: JackRyanCIA; ozzymandus; yall
Turn your speakers up, then
Click on the pic, lol !


168 posted on 10/24/2003 10:15:53 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP (Check out the Texas Chicken D 'RATS!: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/keyword/Redistricting)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

Comment #169 Removed by Moderator

Comment #170 Removed by Moderator

To: vikingcelt
Yes they were quite lax.

Ellis Island did not open for business until 1892.

I would imagine that your grandparents arrived sometime during the first quarter of the last century. They arrived at Ellis Island because it was quite difficult then, as it is still quite difficult today, to walk across the Atlantic Ocean, and ships were their only available option.

Most immigrants arriving at Ellis Island only needed ship's fare; there were very few requirements as far as pre-qualifying for migration via visas etc prior to the 1920's.

The U.S. did not start patrolling the Borders until 1904, mostly looking for Chinese nationals trying to cross the U.S./Mexico Border; the Canadian border was completely open for all intent and purposes.

The U.S. Border Patrol did not come into being until 1924, the first time there were any numerical restrictions placed on immigration in U.S. history enacted by Congress in 1921 and 1924. However, the Border Patrol was not set in place to actually look for immigrants, but for bootleg liquor making its way into the U.S. from Mexico and Canada.

The Border Patrol was not allowed to look for illegal immigrants until 1952, and the efforts were sporadic at best.

So yes, our borders are being watched closer today than ever before, and as much as the "sky is falling" bunch would like to somehow rewrite history, they constantly misrepresent the facts.

Historically, travel between Mexico and the U.S. was unrestricted, and workers from south of the border would come to the U.S., work, and go home, by tightening up border security, we created the real possibility that these workers, should they return home, would not be able to get back the following season to earn a living.

So, they opt to stay and avoid danger of capture.

I am opposed to the idea of open borders; I am also opposed to the idea of closed borders.

We should have some way to allow people who wish to come here, work, and go home to do so. That way we could charge them taxes to help cover their social costs, and maybe, just maybe we would not have ten million people living in a hidden subculture, and messing with ours.
171 posted on 10/24/2003 1:38:53 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (Those who think they know, really piss off those of us who truly do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: nightowl
"...but I have been furious about his taking the side of Muslims..."

I don't understand this statement.

Bush has taken the side of Muslims by knocking over two Muslim governments, and killing Muslim terrorists by the hundreds?

172 posted on 10/24/2003 1:42:41 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (Those who think they know, really piss off those of us who truly do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: vikingcelt
"Some of them were here in the 1700's...others came in the late 1800's."

There were no legalities to immigration back then, all you had to do was to find your way here.

173 posted on 10/24/2003 1:44:46 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (Those who think they know, really piss off those of us who truly do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
You call that a victory! Read the definition PBA. Three years and we get the head completely out of the body of the mother - think again. Any pro-abort could sign that bill.
174 posted on 10/24/2003 5:51:02 PM PDT by Dahlseide (I am a single issue voter, I vote pro-life from dog-catcher to President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Dahlseide; MHGinTN
Marvin, could you please settle this?

You are so much more knowledgeable than I am.
175 posted on 10/24/2003 9:15:21 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (Those who think they know, really piss off those of us who truly do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Gosh, Luis, I enter this fracas late, but here's my take on the PBA ban just passed, if that's what you refer to.

The current deadly state of abortion on demand occurred through incrimental stages. The three most prominent SCOTUS rulings were Roe, Doe v Bolton, and Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania v Casey. Then the Stenberg v Carhardt ruling that is most noteworthy for what O'Connor stated in her remarks as a Nebraska ban on PBA was set aside by the SCOTUS. O'Connor stated clearly that the way the Nebraska law was written--making PBA abortion a homicide crime--was okay with her as long as the state rewrote the law to include an exception for 'the health of the mother'. Why is that significant?... Because she admitted the procedure is homicide! And so we come to the incrimental changes to take back the nations perception, to re-establish with incrimental moves the taboos that previously protect the unborn.

By publicizing partial birth infanticide, this ban will open many eyes to the horror that is abortion on demand ... abortion kills an ALIVE prenatal child! Will the ban stop abortionists from using some other slaughter methodology? No, of course not--it's their business to kill alive children in the womb, but it will stop this particular procedure and raise awareness of the general population when they confront the difficult decisions regarding an 'unplanned pregnancy'. [The born alive infants protection act has brought a skreeching halt to bringing the little ones out of the womb then setting them aside to struggle for air until they expire--a favored method for collecting the fetuses (read little children) that were then harvested for body parts to sell to research programs (no trauma like drugs to the heart and an intact brain and body for experimentation).]

The awareness effect will last just as long as we pro-life people continue to hammer the realities home, no longer. To reject a legislatively establish ban against a particulalrly heinous kill method serves to cancel some of the improper judicial defining of our taboos and re-acquaint the public with the notion that it is the legislature that writes the laws thus defining the 'taboo' structure of our nation's conscience. I actually look forward to the SCOTUS having to rule on this ban. I would bet that the defenders of the indefensible will actually stop short of challenging this ban since they would serve the effect of raising the specter of the ghoulish thing they champion all over again!

Is that about what you wanted, my friend?

176 posted on 10/24/2003 9:36:59 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
No man can truly know another man's heart.
177 posted on 10/24/2003 9:39:39 PM PDT by Blue Scourge (There are alot of loosers in this world...and alot of Liberals; coincidence....I think not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Thanks Marv, I know I could count on you!

I remember reading your debunking of the whole about the abortionist being able to kill the child BEFORE the head came out of the body; something about needing fingers about twice the lenght of normal fingers to do that.
178 posted on 10/24/2003 9:41:04 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (Those who think they know, really piss off those of us who truly do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: Dahlseide
Pay attention...
179 posted on 10/24/2003 9:42:47 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (Those who think they know, really piss off those of us who truly do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Sadly, Luis, when the serial killers have to avoid the partial birth method to kill the little ones, they will just dilate the cervix with a laminary over a two or three day period, expose the membrane of the baby's placental organ, burst it and empty the amniotic fluid, then reach in with forceps and crush the alive baby's skull to empty the cranium and drag the dead or dying child out of the woman's body. The reason the serial killers don't use partial birth infaniticde before about the sixteenth to eighteenth week is the risk of dismembering the child alive while still in the womb as they try to pull on a leg to yank the child down and out of the woman's body ... very risky to the woamn because of toxic leftovers, if you get my drift. The ghouls don't give adamn about the excruciating pain and torture they are inflicting upon an alive, sensing child.
180 posted on 10/24/2003 9:56:47 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-199 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson