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

[rdb3]

Thank you for your input. I understand your needs.

Yo, Mike! Is this Haterade being consumed here?

Back to you, Mr. Ryan, CIA. Why couldn't you simply admit that you made a faux pas and left it at that? Why are you escalating things? That's three attempts at making this personal. You'll understand why I won't take the bait, I'm sure.

[lodwick]

Great post. Thank you.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

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

Christians ask "Chuck who?"

[Jorge]

President Bush is the president of all Americans. Some are Christians. Some are not. It's a tough line to walk. It's easier to complain when you don't have to walk a mile in his shoes. Thank God I don't. Thank God President Bush is standing up for all of us. After 8 years of Monica, Hillary, and Bill, we have been truly blessed.

Well said and worth repeating.

[mhking]

Yo, Mike! Is this Haterade being consumed here?

Don't feel bad. Some idiot tried to give me grief the other day for posting dates as 10.23.03 instead of 10-23-03. Some people just aren't satisfied unless they get to control you, what you say and what you do.

[Dog Gone]

If Chuck Baldwin was elected President, I'd have to do what Alec Baldwin promised to do but didn't.

[Torie]

Well, the chap does seem to prefer "Christians" that are bigots, and find following the rule of law applicable only if it serves their agenda. To each his own.

[hchutch]

Join the club, mgist - I've said the same things you have, and gotten the flames, too.

[hchutch]

Amen to that.

*Pops in an Ice-T CD*

[Torie]

Maybe you should post a vanity about what amnesty you want to see for whom, and why, and what you propose as the end game (open borders, porous borders, selective borders for only those who come in to work their butts off, open borders after truncating the social safety net, whatever, there are so many combinations and permutations). The vanity should keep in mind procedural, economic and political practicalities. If it is calm and reasoned, maybe it will prove useful. In any event, it will give me a chance to weigh in with my Torie Plan yet again. As is often the case, I'm right in the middle on this issue. It can't be too hot or too cold, but must be just right.

[alnick]

You might go read the bill. It does not ban partial-birth abortions. It narrowly defines PBA as an abortion in which the ENTIRE FETAL HEAD is outside the mother's body, which is NOT how PBAs are performed.

That is not true. The act, states, "(1) A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion--an abortion in which a physician deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living, unborn child's body until either the entire baby's head is outside the body of the mother, or any part of the baby's trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother and only the head remains inside the womb, for the purpose of performing an overt act (usually the puncturing of the back of the child's skull and removing the baby's brains) that the person knows will kill the partially delivered infant, performs this act, and then completes delivery of the dead infant--is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited.

[GoDuke]

"``Sec.
``1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited.
``Sec. 1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited
``(a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign
commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills
a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more
than 2 years, or both. This subsection does not apply to a partial-
birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose
life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or
physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused
by or arising from the pregnancy itself. This subsection takes effect 1
day after the date of enactment of this chapter.
``(b) As used in this section--
``(1) the term `partial-birth abortion' means an abortion
in which--
``(A) the person performing the abortion
deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a
living fetus until, in the case of a head-first
presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body
of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation,
any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside
the body of the mother for the purpose of performing an
overt act that the person knows will kill the partially
delivered living fetus;"...

I believe that a head-first presentation would require the head to be fully
out. The rest of the description refers to a typical breach position (
rear-end or feet-first). In this case, it says "...any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside
the body of the mother for the purpose of performing an
overt act that the person knows will kill the partially
delivered living fetus"
I think I'm reading this right though I've been wrong before.

[dogbyte12]

The problem as I see it, is that we are being reactive, rather than pro-active. Even if you accept the notion that we need immigrants to do menial labor, there is a better way to do this than we are now.

Arguably, we have turned it into slavery, or the very least, indentured servitude. We keep things in a gray area, which allows employees to feel the threat of an anonymous call to the INS, further depressing their wages, while at the same time, leaving our borders open wide enough to let these people and others we don't want here in.

Let's stop being kidders here. We could fairly well shut down the border if we wanted. It's just a matter of will. I accept the fact that Pete Wilson style republicans want illegal immigrants available to pick the produce.

How about a middle path? We allow guest workers in, the growers have to suck up a little higher wages, due to the fact that they are quasi legal, and at the same time we put the squeeze on the border for everybody else.

Most won't like this solution, but it seems to be the most prudent, vis a vis, national security, as well as to regulate the amount of work being offered at the expense of others. It should be a stop gap program, to allow jobs that are being unfilled, to be done, yet at the same time, not be a case like the Wal-Mart story today, of people being hired on the cheap in mass, illegally, to bump up a company's quarterly revenue statement.

[foreverfree]

bump

[Torie]

Well maybe this act allows just half the head to come out, and then one can divide it with a chain saw? What do you think? Alternatively, cannot one with just half a head, just vaccuum the brain out from the top? Granted, one law leads to another.

[alnick]

the term `partial-birth abortion' means an abortion in which-- `(A) the person performing the abortion deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother...

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

[alnick]

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

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

[billhilly]

WISHISAIDIT