[COMMENT: I fear Baldwin is, with some exceptions, on the money. Bush is, at first sight, an improvement over Clinton, but he may turn out to be more of a deficit because he -- being, of course, a "conservative", can accomplish more wrong headed measures than Clinton could. Bush has a very secularized version of the Biblical worldview, stuck in the old vaguely Christian liberalism of 1800's and early 1900's liberal Protestantism.
Bush does not understand that the conversion of the world is a spiritual matter, not primarily a political matter. Political freedom that is not rooted in spiritual freedom will not turn out to be freedom. It will be our old friend, secular "liberal democracy", which always drifts away from both liberality and democracy into Big Government Nanny.
Bush does not understand freedom except in secular terms. True freedom is the freedom to do what is right, not the freedom to do what I like. Or, in slightly expanded form -- the freedom to be truth-seekers, the freedom to seek righteousness, and the freedom to do those things with a loving spirit.
Anything less will end up eroding freedom, even of doing what I like. True freedom is the Biblical picture, not the secular liberalism picture. The secular Enlightenment folks were wrong. Classical liberalism cannot survive the loss of its Biblical foundations.
I cling to the hope that Bush is ignorant and naive, not
manipulative. He certainly is ignorant and naive regarding his Christian
faith. He attends St. John's Episcopal Church in DC, a church which does
not preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and cannot say the name of Jesus publicly
-- as the rector of St. John's demonstrated at the inauguration ceremony.
January 21, 2005
Yesterday, President G. W. Bush took the oath of office and
delivered his second inaugural address. As political speeches go,
this one was rather brief only consuming four typewritten pages.
Following are excerpts along with my abbreviated comments.
"I am determined to fulfill the oath that I have sworn and you have
witnessed." (President Bush, January 20, 2005, Inaugural Address)
Unfortunately, President Bush either has no intention of fulfilling
his oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the
United States" or he has no inclination as to what the Constitution
says, because virtually everything he has done since being elected
in 2000 has been egregiously unconstitutional.
From expanding unconstitutional federal funding and oversight for
public education to intensifying unconstitutional federal police
encroachments upon our freedoms and liberties via the Department
of Homeland Security and Patriot Acts to unilaterally and
unconstitutionally ordering the invasion and occupation of Iraq,
President Bush has demonstrated a calloused disregard for the
Constitution. To now proclaim that he is "determined to fulfill the
oath that I have sworn" is meaningless rhetoric.
"The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom
in all the world." (President Bush, January 20, 2005, Inaugural
This statement formed a redundant theme throughout the
President's speech. For example, Bush also said, "the ultimate goal
of ending tyranny around the world." And, "one day this untamed
fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world." Still
other similar statements include, "the global appeal of liberty" and
"a world moving toward liberty", etc.
The tenor and tone of the President's speech are very clear: G.W.
Bush intends to use America's armed forces for imperialistic and
expansionist purposes. Therefore, I believe it is all but certain that
Bush will order our troops to invade and occupy Iran and Syria and
perhaps even plans an attack against North Korea.
[COMMENT: Here I think Baldwin may be overstepping himself. I do not believe that Bush has intentions of invading and being imperialistic in that sense. But do believe that there are "neo-cons" who do have that intention, and who could influence Bush in that direction. E.g., Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) types.
Baldwin's comments about our ignoring other tyrannies is true, but not all Bush's fault, much of which he inherited. Yet he has been soft on China, and has not aggressively defended American interests such as the Panama Canal, or other areas in South America. And, most egregiously, he is not defending our southern borders, almost to the point of betrayal. E. Fox]
It is yet to be seen how long Bush's military aggression will be
tolerated by the American people. After all, the cost in terms of
American lives and tax dollars are so far incalculable. One thing is
certain: we have not yet begun to see the tip of the proverbial iceberg!
[COMMENT: I think this is unfair. Bush's "aggression" was supported by just about everybody prior to its happening, i.e., there was common agreement that Hussein had and would use weapons of mass destruction.
And the jury is still out on whether there will be a functioning (even if secular) democracy in Iraq. Any move toward real freedom is a move toward truth and therefore toward God. Christians can point out that such freedom will not be sustained without God, but we can rejoice in any incremental advance in that direction.
The biggest problem in America is the appalling ignorance and naivete of almost all Christians, and their incapacity to make sense in the public arena. When that changes, when Christian regain their intellectual credibility, things will change. And that is already happening. (See the ID Movement and also article on Hardwired to Connect E. Fox]
"The United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse
oppressors." (President Bush, January 20, 2005, Inaugural Address)
Of course, the United States has ignored oppression for decades.
Two of the most egregious examples of this are China and The Sudan.
The Communist Chinese government is one of the most prolific
murder machines in world history. The toll of oppression and death
inflicted upon the Chinese people by this killing machine is impossible to calculate.
Yet, the United States has invested billions of trade dollars into this
monster with absolute disregard to the suffering souls of China.
President Bush has continued the "one China" policy of his
predecessors and has freely imported China's slave-labor products
to the point that America's manufacturing base has all but
disappeared and our trade deficits continue to break all-time
Likewise, President Bush has turned a blind-eye to the suffering
people of The Sudan. The Chinese-sponsored Khartoum
government has murdered more than 2 million people during the
past two decades with utter impunity. The oppression and brutality
inflicted upon the Sudanese people staggers the imagination. Men
are crucified; women are raped into submission; children are
tortured and sold into slavery. Yet, the White House seems totally
oblivious to their plight.
"The unwanted have worth." (President Bush, January 20, 2005,
I would like to believe that President Bush would include unborn
babies in this statement, but his actions on this subject prove otherwise.
[COMMENT: this is a very fair assessment, I think. Bush has not spent much of his political capital on defending the unborn. When asked in one of the presidential debates whether he would go after Roe v. Wade, he could have given a clear, "You bet your boots I will.... That is a terrible piece of legislation!" But he was very mealy mouthed about it. Bush is, I think, under the thumb of the so-called neo-cons. He does not have the intellectual or spiritual stability to stand against them. E. Fox[
More than four million unborn babies have been mercilessly
slaughtered in the wombs of their mothers since G.W. Bush first
took office in 2001. Abortion on demand is still practiced
undaunted in these United States, rhetoric to the contrary
Regarding abortion, President Bush and his fellow Republicans in
Congress have proven to be "paper tigers." They talk pro-life
during an election campaign season, but they have no intention of
actually saving the lives of the unborn.
Even the Partial Birth Abortion bill which Congress passed and
President Bush signed is nothing but an elaborate ruse to make
Christians and pro-lifers feel good about voting Republican. There
was nothing of substance to it!
If anything, the Partial Birth Abortion bill serves to cement
abortion on demand into the legal fabric of America. By singling
out only one abortion procedure (the least one used, no less; it
accounts for less than one percent of all abortions), all remaining
abortion procedures are thereby certified to be tolerable and legal.
Beyond that, President Bush has increased federal funding for both
domestic and overseas abortion providers to record numbers.
(Reference: http://www.covenantnews.com/lefemine041028.htm )
He has consistently refused to make the life issue pertinent to his
selection of federal judges. In fact, reports I have read indicate that
no less than two-thirds of his judicial appointments to date are
either neutral or lean pro-abortion. That is hardly the track record
of a true pro-life leader!
Add the fact that both Congress and the President have the
authority to end abortion on demand anytime they would choose to
do it, and one easily sees through Bush's pro-life façade.
Congress could end the federal government's endorsement of
abortion on demand by exercising their constitutional authority
granted under Article III, Section 2, to regulate and except
appellate jurisdiction of the federal judiciary, including the U.S.
Supreme Court. Such action would clear the way for state
legislatures to outlaw abortion on demand in their respective states.
However, President Bush has shown no propensity to encourage
Congress to fulfill this constitutional obligation. He has not even
taken a position on Judge Roy Moore's Constitution Restoration
Act which was introduced in both chambers of Congress. (See
In addition, the President has the power to end abortion on
by refusing to execute what he considers unlawful and
unconstitutional Supreme Court decisions. After all, the Supreme
Court is not a power unto itself. It is one of three coequal branches
of the federal government. As designed by the founders, each
branch holds check and balance on the other. This means the
judicial branch has no power to execute any decision or opinion.
That authority belongs exclusively to the President.
For example, President Thomas Jefferson refused to honor the
Alien and Sedition Act. After being told the Supreme Court upheld
the law, Jefferson quipped, (paraphrase) "Fine. Now let's see if
they can enforce it." Obviously, the Court had no authority to
enforce its opinion, so without Jefferson's assistance, the bill
became moot. And note that Jefferson was not removed from
office by Congress.
The point is, if President Bush truly wanted to end the slaughter of
unborn innocents, he could do it! By declaring unborn babies
persons under the Fifth Amendment, he could issue an Executive
Order to his justice department that the federal government would
not interfere with those states that would choose to enact laws
against abortion. Again, this would allow state legislatures and
state governors to implement abortion laws as they deemed
Yet, neither a Republican-controlled Congress nor President G.W.
Bush has done anything consequential to end abortion on demand.
So much for Bush's statement, "the unwanted have worth."
I really wish I could be optimistic about President Bush's second
term. I cannot. I'm afraid that unborn babies will yet be
undefended. Furthermore, I fear this president is leading America
into a federal police state at home and into an era of military
expansionism overseas. I pray I'm wrong.
© Chuck Baldwin
NOTE TO THE READER:
Chuck Baldwin's commentaries are copyrighted and may be
republished, reposted, or emailed providing the person or
organization doing so does not charge for subscriptions or
advertising and that the column is copied intact and that full credit
is given and that Chuck's web site address is included.
Editors or Publishers of publications charging for subscriptions or
advertising who want to run these columns must contact Chuck
Baldwin for permission. Radio or television Talk Show Hosts
interested in scheduling an interview with Chuck should contact
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Go to: => TOP Page; => Politics Library; => Life Library; => ROAD MAP