Why I Write These Columns: An Open Letter To Christian Conservatives

Chuck Baldwin Ministries ^ | 01-30-03 | Baldwin, Chuck

[Diddle E. Squat]

OK, sorry for my misunderstanding.

[Dog Gone]

Chuck Baldwin was a retard during the Clinton Administration and he's still a retard. The fact that he hates the President, regardless of party, does not bestow any political acumen on his part.

He likes throwing bombs from his internet pulpit. If he was on fire, it would be a real internal debate for me whether to spit on him to put the fire out.

[God is good]

It is the rare person who understands the things I am saying.

Must I state the obvious here?

[F16Fighter]

"I do believe, however, that 'W' makes his decisions on what he truly believes is right."

I used to believe that was more or less the case. The evidence now strongly suggests the President has changed his game-plan.

[God is good]

...called Republicans evil...

Oh no, not that!

[God is good]

So you've never disagreed with Bush on one issue?

[F16Fighter]

"[I] don't recall any who claimed to have not voted in protest. There may have been some in my church, but they were very few."

There were more then you think back in '00, and I'll probably be one of them in '04.

The net result is Dubya losing 1/2 a vote since I certainly wouldn't vote for a Rat, but more importantly may be Dubya's hacking away at his base constituency's confidence in him, and undermining morale. This appears clear from the reaction of at least 50% of the Freepers I've seen.

[Dog Gone]

Sure I have. That has nothing to do with my comment, or the accuracy thereof.

[God is good]

So Bush is a man of God is he? Well does he stand up for the Ten Commandments? Roy Moore

[God is good]

You just called a man a retard for disagreeing with the President.

[Dog Gone]

He disagrees with every President, and I called him a retard for being a retard.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Ever wonder how many of the FR Bushbots would be so tolerant of GWB's runaway spending and immigration proposal if he were, say, pro-choice?

You make a really great point. It is precisely because GWB demonstratwes respect for life that I am willing to tolerate what appear to be extravagances in spending and accomodation.

The Culture of Death and Defeatism is something we can do without in this country. It defines liberal Democrats to a tee. Spending with accountability and wise priorities are essential. So is a flat tax.

When government spends money it does not "disappear." It only changes hands. We need to make sure it is exchanged for something of value to us all. And we need to track down and shoot the mob bastards who milk that value for themselves. /rant

[Diddle E. Squat]

Well then blood will be on your hands. You know that there is zero chance of getting USSC nominee who will overturn Roe with Kerry or Edwards or Hillary as president. Yet there is a very good chance that at least some of Bush's appointees will be against abortion. Even taking Roe v. Wade out of the equation, a Democrat president would make it almost impossible to pass increasing restrictions on abortion, such as parental notification, mandatory waiting periods, counseling that includes videos of fetuses moving, etc. In fact their appointees are quite likely to try and overturn these restrictions as 'unconstitutional'. Not so with Bush and his appointees. Did we get any sort of PBA with a Democrat as president? No.

While it may not be saving every life, at least these incremental measures would save some lifes in the meantime. But abandoning Bush, when you know full well that doing so will elect a Democrat, means you are shirking a responsibility, choosing to ignore a chance to save lives. Sorry, one can't follow Pontius Pilate's lead and claim to absolve oneself of any responsibility for the harm that is to come by simply 'washing your hands of it' and refusing to participate.

There is an imperfect choice, a deadly choice, and a choice to turn away, which enables the deadly choice. We are all free to choose, but we are also held responsible for our choices. You can run away from Ninevah, you can complain about the vine withering, but the responsibility remains.

My my, how some howl about never compromising again, never staining their purity. There was a story about a religious man, who upon seeing a wounded man crossed to the other side of the road, lest he defile himself by helping an unclean man...

[sweetliberty]

I think there is truth in the article, however, I think Chuck Baldwin allows his anger to get in the way of his message. As for President Bush, I have to say that I haven't seen him morph into something other than what he showed himself to be in the 2000 campaign. I believe he is a Christian man and that he wants to do what's right. I believe that he seeks God, but like all of us, he doesn't always hear the answers clearly.

As a Christian and as a conservative, I certainly wish he would take what I would consider to be a stronger stand on certain issues. I wish that none of our elected leaders were afraid to stand on principle and boldly declare their positions on the issues and let the people decide if their positions are acceptable or not. I wish politicians didn't pander to every special interest and and contingent of litigious whiners that threatens to have a tantrum if they don't get their way. I wish they would choose to follow what they believe to be right no matter how popular or unpopular it is.

I believe that political correctness has so infected our public discourse that words have little or no meaning any more and it is making linguistic slaves of all of us, and not the least of politicians, which the lynching of Trent Lott bears testimony to. We are also infected with a condition that is companion to excessive "niceness," the syndrome of "nonrockaboatus." This is nowhere more apparent than in the Washington political arena. Where I see a real problem with how this plays out is when democrats make demands, implying or even stating directly that to disagree or put up a fight is rocking the boat and not playing "nice" and we respond by agreeing with them and trying to be nicer. They are like children who make up the rules of the game as they go along. Their solution to losing is to change the rules. Where republicans miss it is in allowing the democrats to always be changing the rules and in the interest of "getting along," make compromises where there is no room for compromise. The intent of the heart may be right, but the results can be disastrous. As Rush said today in his broadcast, republicans in general and the president in particular, seem bent on making people who hate them like them, and it is never going to happen. Well, that was the gist of it anyway.

The president inherited one heck of a mess from the former occupant of the White House. Unlike the former "president" who only served as president to liberal democrats, this president sees himself as president of all Americans, as he should. With his charge comes the responsibility to rise above party, and in many respects I think he has been able to do that, with none too satisfactory results on either side in many cases. In addition to that, he inherited the terrorism that the former president refused to deal with and he has taken some very strong and unpopular positions to take charge and do what needed to be done. Besides having to cope with the self-serving interests of leaders of other nations and a whole rash of tinpot dictators and tyrants, he has also had to wage war in the face of the treasonous behavior of his countrymen, and I can't even imagine how painful it must be hearing how the media skews and polishes everything the people hear to suit their own left-leaning socialist agenda.

I sometimes think about how I would handle things in his position. It is truly not a place I would want to be. Is he everything I had hoped he would be as a president? In some ways he is, and in other ways he is far from it. Do I expect him to be perfect? No. Do I believe we are better off now than we were at this point prior to the last election? Absolutely. Will I vote for him again? Probably....because I look at the alternatives and I realize that NOT to do so is the equivolent of casting a vote for someone far worse. Do I believe that God is working in and through this president? I have to, because I believe that our God is bigger than the sum of all our problems and sins as a nation and to NOT believe that would be putting limits on God that do not exist.

It is not my place to judge the president. I can judge his policies and argue with them. I can question his reasoning. I can call for him to be replaced. But God alone can judge the intent of the heart and He has worked His will throughout history through leaders just and unjust. So my faith is in the God I serve and the God the president serves, albeit imperfectly, and not in G.W. Bush the man. We absolutely need to hold him accountable for his decisions and actions, but we have to ask ourselves which of us could walk in his shoes and bear his load. We need to pray for him, always. I personally think his heart is more maleable to God's will than that of any of his would be opponents, based on what I see and what my own spirit tells me, and I will trust God for the rest.

Greater is He that is in you than he that is in the world. (1 Jn. 4:4b)

[Theodore R.]

He likes throwing bombs from his internet pulpit.

I got the impression that unlike Tom Daschle Chuck Baldwin is in fact "deeply saddened" by the President's refusal to follow the conservative course that many led themselves to believe that he represented in 2000. I think that Baldwin takes no pleasure in calling Bush to task on his growing liberalism. Yes, he is not as liberal as his opposition, but many are dismayed at his recent liberal overtures, particularly the guest-worker plan. Still, when most read the 2004 platform plank on abortion, I would imagine that they will "come home" to Bush one more time, but the enthusiasm won't be there for many.

[Dog Gone]

It's just that I don't recall any Baldwin column where he praised any President for any action. You'd think that he'd like something that one of them did, at least once. Maybe I missed it.

[FatherOfLiberty]

A most eloquent reply, sweetliberty! You really do need to seek political office one day, and soon!

One would likely need to vote for oneself for office to say they voted for the person who would best represent their positions. Barring that impossibility, one next looks for a candidate who best represents a core set of beliefs and values that best define the country they would want to live in. For me, those standards are presented in the U.S. Constitution with it's basis in moral law and it's acknowledgement of inalienable rights from God - rights that no government can grant, nor supplant. It is unfortunate that men and women of integrity and firm moral resolve that truly understand and defend the Constitution are able to be elected anymore. A very sad commentary on our sad, sad society.

[Softballmom]

Come on you guys! I have wondered too, about some of his policies, but you have to look at all the good he's done. Please don't let the liberal spin turn you against him. He's a good man, who at the worst, has made some mistakes. Don't forget, also, that should Bush lose the election, we also lose Condi, Rummy, Ashcroft, and others.

[sweetliberty]

I would say that if the Constitution Party is able to get candidates elected at state and local levels and eventually attain to major party status, that it would be the new "republican" party with the current republican party replacing the old democrat party. The current democrat party would, of course, have fallen off the left side of the planet at that point.

[God is good]

Liberal spin. Bush panders to the liberals.

The fact is, the Democrats are the most evil, anti-Amercan, anti-God, anti-equality, the list goes on and on and on perverts America has ever faced. This is why the socialist Bush looks so good next to the Democrats, but Bush is not a good president--this perception of good is relative.