By Chuck Baldwin
January 10, 2006


With confirmation hearings underway for Judge Samuel Alito, many conservative Christians are focusing on the abortion issue. In fact, many pro-life activists are hailing Alito as the man who would overturn legalized abortion in America.

However, as is usually the case, most conservative Christians cannot see beyond the abortion debate to look at the bigger picture. Then again, myopia seems to be a permanent disorder affecting a majority of conservative Christians today, so why should things suddenly change now?

For the record, Judge Alito probably finds abortion personally repugnant. It is certainly safe to say that Alito's opinions on abortion seem to reflect greater respect for life than anything we saw from Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. However, that reality alone will not make much difference. There is a greater reality at work here that most conservative Christians deliberately choose to ignore: the Republican Party has no intentions of ending legalized abortion! Absolutely none!

To the vast majority of Republicans in Washington, D.C., the abortion issue is merely a ready-made sugar-stick to hand out to conservative Christians every election cycle in order to keep them corralled in the GOP vote column.

As long as a Republican candidate can claim to be "pro-life," he or she can count on receiving sizeable support from conservative Christians. That simple statement, whether genuine or not, whether followed with any substantive action or not, guarantees that most Christian televangelists will spend countless hours pleading with their supporters to vote "pro-life" by supporting the GOP ticket.

It doesn't matter that so-called "pro-life" Republican candidates have had over 30 years to overturn Roe and are no closer now to doing so than they were when Roe was first decided. It doesn't matter that not a single "pro-life" Republican  congressman has introduced legislation under Article III, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution to remove Roe from the jurisdiction of the Court, which is the prerogative of Congress to do. It doesn't matter that after spending multiplied millions of dollars and electing hundreds of "pro-life" Republicans, nothing has been done to overturn Roe. It doesn't matter that the Republican Party has controlled the White House for over 17 of the last 25 years and, accordingly, has
controlled appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court for all of those years (not to mention the fact that it was a majority Republican- appointed Court that passed the Roe decision), and nothing has been done to overturn Roe. All that matters is that Republicans talk "pro-life" during the election cycle.

How can any sensible person believe that the Republican Party truly intends to overturn the Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion on demand? It's beyond laughable: it's hysterical! Even if Judge Alito would vote to overturn Roe should the opportunity present itself, it is almost certain that Chief Justice John Roberts would not vote to overturn it. Therefore, the vote to overturn Roe is 6-3 against-at best! In other words, we are no closer to reversing Roe v Wade than we were before President Bush was elected!

However, none of this matters to most conservative Christians. After all, they can beat their chests, hobnob with Republican big-shots, raise millions of dollars from gullible Christians, and pretend to be "pro-life" every two years from now until the cows come home without worrying about anything of substance actually being done. What a racket! Yet, the situation is actually worse than that.

Worse than most Christians' gullibility regarding the abortion issue is the manner in which they give Republicans a pass on other issues of immense importance. It seems that all a Republican has to do to gain the confidence and support of the vast majority of conservative Christians is say he is "pro-life" and opposed to homosexual marriage. His or her position on virtually everything else doesn't seem to matter.

It doesn't seem to matter to most conservative Christians that President Bush has increased deficit spending beyond that of all previous administrations put together. Yes, you read it right: President Bush (with the aid of his fellow Republicans in Congress) is a bigger debtor than all 42 of his predecessors combined!

According to the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor, Dec. 2005, "According to the Treasury Department, from 1776-2000, the first 224 years of U.S. history, 42 U.S. presidents borrowed a combined $1.01 trillion from foreign governments and financial institutions, but in the past four years alone, the Bush administration borrowed $1.05 trillion." But that doesn't matter to a hill of beans to most conservative Christians. Bush is "pro-life."

It doesn't matter to the vast majority of conservative Christians that President Bush is attempting to accrue power to the executive branch at the expense of constitutional government, that he is championing extremely questionable, if not downright dangerous, legislation that could result in the dismantlement of civil and individual liberties. It doesn't matter that Bush is involved in the most intense nation-building scheme in post World War II history.  It doesn't matter that he has done more to open the door of illegal immigration than any president in modern memory. It doesn't matter that he spearheaded (and continues to laud) the most expensive and most intrusive expansion of the federal government's role in public education in U.S. history.  It doesn't matter that Bush continues to promote ill-conceived trade deals such as CAFTA and FTAA which weaken American independence and sacrifice thousands of American jobs. Because President Bush claims to be "pro-life," conservative Christians give him a pass on virtually any and all other conduct.

Therefore, even if (a big if) Judge Alito would join Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas as being willing to overturn Roe, the votes are still not there to actually do so.

Furthermore, President Bush could get at least one, and maybe two, additional Supreme Court appointments. Two of the Court's current justices are aged and in ill health. In other words, by the time Bush leaves office, he could get as many as four appointments to the High Court.

However, instead of overturning Roe v Wade, it is much more likely that the Supreme Court will further advance the imperialistic philosophy of the Bush administration resulting in an ongoing and rapid demise of individual liberties for American citizens. In other words, legalized abortion will still be intact but constitutional liberties won't be, Bush's appointments to the High Court notwithstanding. And, unfortunately, when it happens, conservative Christians still won't get it.

© 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 contact and that full credit is given and that Chuck's web site address is included.

When responding, please include your name, city and state. And, unless otherwise requested, all respondents will be added to the Chuck Wagon address list.

Please visit Chuck's web site at: http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com. .

Who is Chuck Baldwin?  He asks some excellent questions.  I feel the frustration and anger that he feels.

hanks Winston for a very enlightened discussion.

Beamer,

If you go back through some of my threads you'll find a lot of Baldwin's material.  He was the vice-presidential candidate for the Constitution Party- which is a little to the right of the Libertarians.  He is a true Constitutional Conservative, and also a reverand in some church in the FL panhandle.  Go to his website if you want to find out more- it's actually quite interesting; he has all of his essays archived there, too.

I pretty much ignore his Chuckwagon diatribes against abortion, and often he brings a religious perspective to his newsletter that I find extreme, but even on those issues, he is principaled and articulate.  I find him, along with George Will, to be among the most reasoned essayists on the right wing.

4. How do libertarians differ from "liberals"?
Once upon a time (in the 1800s), "liberal" and "libertarian" meant the same thing; "liberals" were individualist, distrustful of state power, pro-free-market, and opposed to the entrenched privilege of the feudal and mercantilist system. After 1870, the "liberals" were gradually seduced (primarily by Marxism) into believing that the state could and should be used to guarantee "social justice". They largely forgot about individual freedom, especially economic freedom, and nowadays spend much of their time justifying higher taxes, bigger government, and more regulation. But libertarians remained distrustful of the state and therefore prefer to encourage private, voluntary solutions to social and economic problems instead of more government.

5. How do libertarians differ from "conservatives"?
For starters, by not being conservative. Most libertarians have no interest in returning to an idealized past; we've been there, and it had a lot of problems. More generally, libertarians hold no brief for the right wing's rather overt militarist, racist, sexist, and authoritarian tendencies and reject conservative attempts to "legislate morality" with censorship, drug laws, and vario us bits of Bible-thumping. Though libertarians believe in free-enterprise capitalism, we refuse to defend the military-industrial complex as conservatives tend to do; instead the military that we'd like to see would be a tiny fraction of its present size.

I actually tend toward libertarian views on fiscal matters (government waste, spending, etc.) and civil liberties.  I know they favor smaller military budgets.

"Though libertarians believe in free-enterprise capitalism, we refuse to defend the military-industrial complex as conservatives tend to do; instead the military that we'd like to see would be a tiny fraction of its present size."  [see link below]

I have a big disagreement with the libertarian view regarding the environment.  I believe corporations and individuals need to be heavily regulated on this issue and I believe more open space, sensitive habitats and parkland should be set aside, free from development.
http://www.impel.com/liblib/Libertarianism.html