What Did Mr. Bush’s 2nd Inaugural Address Really Mean?

[Emit]

Did Bush's Inaugural Address have hidden meanings based on the religious/political cult of dominionism? K. Yurica explores some striking comparisons with this article.

For important links and endnotes contained within this article, visit the website:

http://www.yuricareport.com/BushSecondTerm/WhatMrBush2ndInauguralMeans.html
_______________________________________________________
What Did Mr. Bush’s 2nd Inaugural Address Really Mean?
Biblical Code Unraveled
By Katherine Yurica
February 21, 2005
Updated February 24, 2005 (a sentence was modified to clarify its meaning.)

On January 20, 2005, George W. Bush delivered his second inaugural address to the nation. It was a relatively short speech. To most observers the speech appeared to have little or no substance. Others viewed it as a shift in policy to rights. Some people praised it to the sky: Frank Warner said, the “Second inaugural address was a masterful expression of liberty, for liberty.” Others, including Mr. Bush, who copied one line from the book, compared his ideas to Natan Sharansky’s, The Case for Democracy...

But it was David Domke, an associate professor at the University of Washington, in his brilliant article, “Just Another Word for Everything Left to Lose,” who comes the closest to capturing the essence of Mr. Bush’s speech. Domke credits scholar R. Scott Appleby with the perception that Mr. Bush has devised “a theological version of Manifest Destiny.”<1>

<<snip>>

Mr. Bush’s second inaugural address has puzzled many others. Journalists have pointed out he used the words, “free, freedom or liberty” forty-nine times. Not many observers, however, have questioned why, nor have they asked, “What did Mr. Bush mean by these words?” The answer to this question is important for Americans and the world to understand. I intend to expose Mr. Bush’s true meaning in this essay.

The speech was couched in vagueness, repetition, and religious and biblical terminology. But Mr. Bush and his speech writers were careful to bury explicit references to scriptures in a sea of what appears to be verbal idealism. However, the speech is not idealistic. It is a blueprint of a strange religious American foreign policy and a reformation of our government at home along the lines advocated by a religious/political cult.

The speech reveals Mr. Bush’s plans to export his political agenda to other nations and in the process build an American “Christian” empire...

<<snip>>
____________________________________________________________________
Yurica's article then continues to examine some of Bush’s statements from his second Inaugural Address that demonstrate he was speaking in religious code.

Interesting and scary read.

[merbex]

1. Her website has become a frequent stop for me to see if she has

new essaysthey are extremely well researched and informative

I recommend everyone bookmark her site

[bpilgrim]

7. Thank GORE he 'INVENTED' the INTERNET's!

bookmarked

peace

[dbonds]

2. "Freedoms just another word for nothing else to loose"

Hmmm, right, * does want freedom for all.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

3. “free, freedom or liberty” forty-nine times.

Freedom to lock down another nations businesses/infrastructure and make sure our corporations end up controlling most of them. Yup, that's freedom, at the cost of the indigenous people of the land. It's dog eat dog. It's launch a war before others get dibs on them there oilfields, it's Bremers illegal and immoral "rules". It's democracy with a little d.

It's a shell game, a patriots nightmare, a freedomfighters doublecross, a do as I say and not as I have done, it's rewriting history, ignoring the facts as they are, a smearing of the truth, a covert ploy, a mocking of justice, a purging of rational thought in exchange for jingoistic rhetoric, bullying, arm twisting, hitmen in special ops outfits, maniacs, zealots, religious extremists, non-comissioned fundamentalists, purveyors of aggression, law benders and breakers, international rogues, treaty destoyers, and people who have lied to themselves for so long that it all seems alright just the way things are.... pity the fool.

I hope I didn't miss anything there...

[Martin Eden]

4. Bush is draping himself

In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, Bush draped himself in the flag so thoroughly that any criticism of his policies was viewed by a politically significant percentage of the American public as inexcusably partisan, unpatriotic, or even treasonous.

Now he is making every effort to equate his presidency with the unassailable ideals of freedom and democracy. Therefore, if you oppose Bush you must be "with" the terrorists or others who stand in the way of eradicating tyranny around the globe.

It doesn't especially matter whether or not Bush himself believes his own rhetoric. I find it unproductive to try to understand him on a personal level or to attempt to dissuade his supporters on that basis. What matters is the practical and political effect of the Bush drapery. It reinforces his base, persuades some of the moderates, and shields the true machinations of his administration from scrutiny and criticism.

Very few ask how Bush can truly be promoting freedom and democracy abroad while he is eroding democracy and constitutional safeguards at home. Indeed, relatively few seem aware of the erosion, or of the consolidation of power in fewer hands that are replacing transparency with secrecy and journalism with propaganda.

The real meaning of the 2nd inaugural, in my opinion, is a reinforced set of drapes that hides from public view the real changes that are taking place in our government and in the world.

[LookFJess]

5. It meant

CRAP!!!!!

[forintegrity]

6. In one word...

it meant NOTHING!