Monday, December 31, 2007

Huckabee Shows Real Guts on Immigration

I was just watching a YouTube replay of Mike Huckabee on "Meet the Press" , and am grateful that the web often makes it unnecessary to remember how to program the timed-record on the old VCR. At one point, Tim Russert set up a real "gotcha" on illegal immigration.

Russert first played a clip of Huckabee from a debate, in which Huckabee said; "We're a better country than to punish children for what their parents did." Then Russert showed a quote from Huckabee's "Secure America Plan", that gives a 120 day window for illegals to register and return back to their country of origin, otherwise be barred from re-entry for 10 years.

After quoting both statements out of context to set it up, Russert executed his seemingly perfect "gotcha".
  • Russert-"Children born here are American citizens..."
  • Huckabee-"Mmm Hmm"(agreement)
  • Russert-"..and you were saying that, don't punish those kids. A week later, you said no, no, no send the parents home. And what happens to the kids?"
Now I was certain that any politician would find some way to dodge such a question. But what did Huckabee do? Without even the slightest pause, he said; "They go with their parents. I mean I can't imagine a parent not taking th..." While this made my heart fairly sing, Russert's "gotcha" clearly wasn't having the desired effect; so he cut off Huckabee for another pass at it.
  • Russert-"But they're American citizens. Why do they have to leave the country?"
  • Huckabee-"Because they're...they're first; before they're American citizens, they're the children of their parents."
No it's important to know that they had just finished discussing (by Russert's choice) Mitt Romney's position changes and dishonesty in campaign attack adds. He was clearly trying to make Huckabee look like he had either changed his own position between the two statements or was being dishonest himself.

Russert even continued trying to make it look like Huckabee's answer resulted in punishing the child, in contradiction to his previous position statement. When he found that didn't work, he started another "gotcha" setup, about how sending home all those illegals might hurt our economy, which Huckabee quickly countered before letting the host complete his new setup.

Huckabee stood firm, his primary position being that we absolutely must secure the border. His not directly stated, but clearly suggested, idea being that if we discover negative secondary effect after securing the border; we can certainly find solutions that work. But first and foremost, we must secure the border.

Even those who, like me, think children born of illegals shouldn't be citizens have to give Mike Huckabee a lot of credit. He showed a great deal of courage in giving such an honest answer. I'm sure a lot of liberals will see Huckabee as an outright villain for daring to say the children should be expected to leave with their parents, and I'm sure he knows it.

But it still allows for those children to re-enter the country later, as citizens; thus, not punishing the children for the crime of the parents. And it still stays firm on securing the border and enforcing Huckabee's Secure America Plan.

I'm sure there will be times and issues where changing conditions or new information will result in Huckabee changing his mind. But it seems pretty clear that he's a man of integrity, and he's no flip-flopper.

Saturday, December 29, 2007

Rush Limbaugh Sawing a Leg Off Reagan's Stool

Many credit Ronald Reagan (and I think rightly so) with building the "3-legged stool" that is the modern conservative movement. The three legs being Defense Conservatives, Fiscal Conservatives, and Social Conservatives.

Rush Limbaugh needs to realize his own marginalizing of moral and social issues (at the root of his attacks on Mike Huckabee) is in danger of cutting off the Social Conservative leg. A leg that the leaders of the Republican party have been doing little beyond rhetoric to shore up in recent years.

I think there are two basic reasons Rush is attacking Mike Huckabee. Number 2 is that Huckabee does, admittedly, often lead with a populist sounding attention getter up front and one often has to sift for his solutions; which ARE CONSERVATIVE.

The Number 1 Reason is the one area where RUSH IS NOT CONSERVATIVE. Rush strikes me as having become too much of a hedonist (or at least giving a wink to hedonism) to be able to support anyone who takes issues like fighting homosexual mainstreaming seriously. As one who has listened to Rush for years, it's obvious that he thinks homosexual mainstreaming is no big deal. For me, it's the biggest.

We can recover from a temporary tragic bout of liberalism in fiscal areas. All but the most extreme far-left liberal loons become "Defense Conservatives" when our nation is obviously threatened. But a governmental sanction of homosexual practice would shatter our basic culture to such a degree that we would never recover.

Huckabee needs to put his conservative solutions more up-front in his speeches and answers. This would help put those at ease who, after hearing Rush's false charges that Huckabee is liberal in the Defense and Fiscal areas; and may not look deep enough into his record and statements to see Huckabee's firm support for all three legs.

Although it's apparent that Rush does believe in God as the Creator (see his "Undeniable Truths of Life" #s 20&23); he seems to worship at the altar of the "Almighty Dollar" first and foremost, and seems incredulous that any candidate mentions any subject more often than money.

Rush has enough staff and history of deep research that he either knows his charges are false, or he is predisposed to believing the worst about a candidate who is dedicated to supporting the Conservative stool by three firm legs even if he has carve a replacement for the fragile Social/Moral leg himself from a tree of basically Biblical values. I have enough reason not to doubt Rush's honesty that I believe it's the latter, and therefore he simply hasn't bothered to get all the facts about Huckabee.

In either case, it seems to indicate Rush believes more in a stool supported by two legs and a broom-straw, than the 3-legged stool of Ronald Reagan. [note (2008-01-03): My opinion of Rush's intention have changed after a statement Rush made the night of the Iowa caucus. I now think he believes Huckabee would be very likely defeated by the Democrats, and his loss would marginalize "the Christian right." Look for a more in-depth post on that subject later today.]

Friday, December 21, 2007

Rush is Wrong about Huckabee Supporters

Rush is rarely wrong, but he is absolutely dead wrong on his perception of the reason for the Huckabee surge. He claims it's a result of "identity politics"; that is voting for someone because they are a member of a particular group.

Rush says Christian Conservatives are supporting Huckabee because he is a Christian and is a former Baptist minister. In this, Limbaugh is absolutely, completely and infuriatingly wrong!

I have been trying for 3 weeks to get through to enlighten Mr Limbaugh as to the reason at least I am supporting Huckabee; and I don't think I'm alone in my reasons. It has a lot more to do with my goals as a Christian in America than with Huckabee himself being a Christian. And I think Limbaugh is basically insulting us and Huckabee for actually sticking to our core values.

I am sick and tired of the Republican party talking the talk on moral issues, and not walking the walk. Does Limbaugh actually fall into the Liberal trap of thinking the GOP lost the House and Senate because of the war? Anyone who believes that needs to open their eyes to the moral questions being raised during the last election and especially as relates to the issue of homosexual activity and turning a blind eye to it.

As much as I'm with Limbaugh on a number of conservative issues, I'm much more concerned about the moral degradation in this country. To quote Mike Huckabee; "What's the point of keeping the terrorists at bay in the Middle East if we can't keep decline and decadence at bay here at home?"

Limbaugh has repeatedly brought up the issue that Democrats somehow keep getting the support of black voters by playing to their concerns; even though they never really do anything to resolve the issues. He verbally wonders when they will get wise to the Democrats and start looking for real solutions over rhetoric.

In the same way that a growing number of "African Americans" are reportedly starting to look to more conservative solutions, we "values voters" are done with having Republicans talk about "our" issues and then do nothing legislatively. We're also appalled at seeing their lives filled with just as much hedonism and elitism as the furthest left-leaning Democrats.

To sum it up in a single phrase that even those who seem to put economic policy above all, such as Limbaugh, can understand; It's Ethics and Morality Stupid! And if you can't understand that it's not dependent on someone "being" a certain religion or of a specific sectarian persuasion; then you're in the same boat as those Bible-hating ACLU lawyers who argue for suppression of religion in the name of a mis-interpretation of "the establishment clause" of the first amendment.

While Rush may be the bastion of conservatism on fiscal and security issues, he's too busy joking about having "mistresses" in various states to entertain the notion that our support is due to the fact there are ways in which Mike Huckabee is more conservative than Ronald Reagan!

For one thing, Mike Huckabee has remained in a faithful marriage to his first and only wife, which is something that not Ronald Reagan, nor Newt Gingrich, nor Rudy Giuliani, nor a host of other Republican "icons" have managed to do. When he talks about the sanctity of marriage as the union between one man and one woman, you know he not only means it but he lives it.

Mike Huckabee helped pass a constitutional amendment in Arkansas that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and helped pass an "Unborn Child Amendment". If such had been done nationally by Ronald Reagan or during any of the subsequent Republican administrations, I'm convinced that not only would congress would still be in Republican control, but we would be well on our way to solving some of our worst social problems.

Rush and other conservative commentators have revealed amazement at how disconnected politicians seem to be from the concern of most Americans over illegal immigration. Well I'm flabbergasted at how disconnected and blind Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, and a host of others seem to be on the issue of homosexual-mainstreaming. So called "gay-marriage" is a big part of it, but that's not the whole issue.

Now I'm not saying that practicing homosexuality is somehow "the biggest sin". However, societal acceptance of homosexual practice is a good barometer of the general moral condition of that society. The marginalization of marriage has already been a huge problem in this country, and that needs to be reversed.

Instead of working to strengthen the family unit, we have Liberals wanting to put a governmental stamp of approval on the practice, whether as "gay-marriage" or "civil-unions". Meanwhile, many supposed conservatives are content to sit idly by or even gladly accept governmental endorsement of homosexual practice as just an "alternate lifestyle", as long as it's not called "marriage".

It makes my blood boil when I hear Rush talk about Liberals accusing Republicans of being "Racist, bigot, sexist, homo-phobes". Rush seems to be suggesting that Republicans who stand against acceptance of homosexuality deserve the ire of those who rail against us; the same as if we were racists, bigots, and sexists.

Furthermore, a phobia is a fear of something that there is no reason to fear. In case Mr Limbaugh hasn't noticed, there is a real movement to force acceptance of homosexuality as part of the American (and world) culture. How can one conceivably be considered a conservative, if one is willing to make something part of the American mainstream which would fundamentally and change the basic fabric of American society forever rather than conserve it?

I'm full to bursting on the subject of "conservatives" who scoff at social conservatism, but I'm trying to stay on topic of things either said directly by or quoted (without contradiction) by Rush Limbaugh; and specifically those things that allow for his view of "identity politics" as the only reason he sees that we support Mike Huckabee.
  • You say Mike Huckabee went along with raising some taxes as Governor of Arkansas? Well Ronald Reagan went along with raising taxes as governor of California. (Plus Huckabee lowered taxes many more times than raising them)
  • You say Mike Huckabee is soft on illegal immigration because he was in favor of allowing scholarships for the children of illegals in Arkansas, even though he now proposes a Border Security First plan? Well Ronald Reagan gave us an Amnesty for illegal aliens themselves, in advance of a promised border security that never happened.
  • You say Mike Huckabee is taking the Democrats side on Iraq, because he said Bush showed an "arrogant bunker mentality". Well Ronald Reagan was accused of condoning the Holocaust, for placing a wreath on a grave at the Bitburg military cemetery in Germany, in 1985. Both accusations were false. Reagan was simply trying to ensure solid relations with Germany (as an ally against the Soviet Union), 40 years after WWII; and Huckabee said the battle in Iraq should have been supported with more strength, not less. So he was actually taking a position opposite the Democrat view that our troops were either too aggressive or shouldn't have been there at all.
I'll admit that in some areas, I'd like a candidate more conservative than even Ronald Regan ever was. But I don't see that Huckabee is noticeably less conservative than Reagan was prior to the White House; and Huckabee certainly isn't less conservative than Romney, McCain, Thompson, or (God-forbid) Giuliani.

I'm not abandoning my conservative principles to follow someone who happens to be called a "Christian." I suggest rather that Rush, along with the majority of "conservative" pundits and Republican legislators, is simply continuing the tradition of which he accuses Liberals; looking at Christian Conservatives as "a bunch of rube, hayseed hicks".

Are they so obsessed with worshiping at the alter of "Fiscal Conservatism" that they feel threatened or confused by the idea that we actually take other areas of conservative thought just as seriously? Why is it so hard for them to realize that we can have conservative social issues as our highest priority, without abandoning other conservative issues or blindly following some religious label. Yes our social views are in line with religious convictions. But as the Declaration of Independence says, our inalienable rights are endowed by our Creator, not by Wall Street.

Rush rages against Liberals when they accuse his listeners of being "mind-numbed robots" who agree with anything he says; when we're really agreeing with him when he says what we already believe. Now Rush Limbaugh has basically accused us of supporting Huckabee like mind-numbed robots because he's a "Christian"; when in fact we're supporting Huckabee for demonstrating he can get the results in which we already believe.

In spite of what Rush has been saying recently, I want to credit him for influencing me to choose Mike Huckabee as my candidate for President. It's largely at his urging over the years and in investigating things Rush has said (and others have said about him) that I've learned to investigate the whole matter and whole record in politics; rather than taking the most repeated or harshest statements at face value.

It's not a shared religious label, as Rush Limbaugh supposes, but a result of my personal search for the facts that is at the root of my support for Mike Huckabee.

Thursday, December 20, 2007

The Cry of the Far-Left-Loon

Although I actually moved to get out of Cynthia McKinney's (former) congressional district, I was most amused to see she recently announced her campaign for President, on the Green Party ticket.

McKinney is credited with being the first black woman to represent Georgia in the U.S. House. She is, however, most famous for her outrageous statements and behavior; such as her ubiquitous race-baiting, accusing George W Bush of having foreknowledge of the WTC attacks on 9/11, and striking a capitol hill police officer. Her Bush-hating 9/11 conspiracy theory alone should make her appealing to some of the "far-left-loons", who in recent years have been a mainstay of the Democrat party.

I found her campaign site at, and couldn't help but to immediately think of "run Forest run." The phrase is of course from the popular Tom Hanks movie, "Forest Gump"; in which the title character was fictionally given credit for, or interjected into some notable events in history. It was a masterful use of then-new video technology to paste Hanks into existing historical footage.

I expect that as Cynthia "runs", her only impact on historical events will be to draw a small percentage of those "far-left-loons" away from the Democrat party; splitting the socialist vote so we can get past the residual impact of the Soviet social meddling targeted at the baby-boomers. (that and being a source of amusement for rational voters)

Maybe she'll even serve as poster child for what's wrong with the Democrat party, and pave the way for a return to paths trod by those such as Joseph Lieberman and Zell Miller. Yes, many of their ideas are still a bit too liberal for my taste. But unlike the radical "bomb-throwers" that seem the Democrat norm under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, I can consider those such as Lieberman and Miller respected members of a worthy opposition.

If on the other hand, Democrats want to continue as "fellow travelers" along the path of the "far-left-loons"; taking a good look at Cynthia McKinney will give you a clear idea of their inevitable destination.

Monday, December 17, 2007

Huckabee Doesn't Have Time for the Whole Sermon

I'm getting a bit frustrated with hearing from conservative talk show hosts, that Mike Huckabee sounds too liberal. This is especially true of THE conservative talk show host, Rush Limbaugh. However, I can't fault Rush too much for that. I have to lay it at Huckabee's doorstep.

I'm not agreeing with those who say Huckabee is too liberal, just that he sometimes sounds too liberal in the media sound-bites. After reading and listening to many of the former baptist minister's whole speeches; it seems he often starts with a "centrist"/liberal sounding introduction, and then develops a case for his conservative solution.

I suspect this is the result of both having to deal with a heavily Democrat legislature in Arkansas, and the "sermon" format he was used to in the pulpit. In those situations, he had to make the message sound appealing to the listener he was trying to engage; and then as the speech developed lead them to the details of the real solution.

A perfect example of what I believe Huckabee is doing is found in the Bible itself, in John 3:16-18; which begins; "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Most Christians can quote John 3:16, but how many remember that in verses 17&18, Jesus makes the point that he didn't come to bring condemnation to those who wouldn't believe in Him, but that all were already condemned before He came; and His sacrifice offers the chance to escape that universal condemnation. Now how many would recite that passage if John 3:16 began with; "He that believeth not is condemned already"; even though that's really the reason Christ came to begin with. If we were not in peril we wouldn't have needed saving.

As this applies to Huckabee's speeches and answers to press questions; he's got to realize that they're only going to report the conservative details of his speeches if he makes them an integral part of the quotes they are going to pick. Most voters will not look for, nor pay attention to, the extended details contained within sermon-length speeches or articles.

One example I can think of is Huckabee's view that arts and music are an important part of a well rounded education. He makes statements such as "Music and the arts are not extraneous, extra-curricular, or expendable - I believe they are essential." But in more extended articles and interviews has also said things like "education is a function of the states, not the federal government".

The latter, more conservative statement is not in conflict with the former; but one would certainly not expect the latter from hearing only the former. Now which of those statements do you think a liberal media is more likely to report? And which part will conservative commentators see, especially if the second is buried ten or more paragraphs into the story?

I'm no political speech-writer; but let's try something like this:
I believe that education is a function of the states, not the federal government; just as strongly as I believe that music and the arts are an essential part of education. So as President, I would use the "bully pulpit" to emphatically recommend that the States include these in their education programs. But I would not make this a Federal mandate nor create a new Federal program for this purpose.

Get the idea? I'm sure Mike Huckabee will do a much better job of articulating such; if he will just realize he doesn't have time for the whole sermon.

Saturday, December 15, 2007

Hunter Calls on Bush to Pardon Border Agents

A Washington Times story about members of congress calling for a presidential pardon of Ramos and Compean, after noting that their names were again absent from the list of the 29 pardons Bush issued this week.

These two Border Patrol Agents were given multi-year prison sentences for what amounts to having apparently failed to fill out some paperwork; after firing at a drug-smuggling illegal alien who they were trying to apprehend; but who escaped back across the border into Mexico.

Among those quoted, Republican Presidential hopeful Duncan Hunter had this to say:

"By refusing to pardon agents Ramos and Compean, the president has missed yet another opportunity to correct this miscarriage of justice, The fact that the drug dealer, whose testimony sent the agents to jail has been indicted for running drugs across the border while serving as a federal witness necessitates a presidential pardon. Agents Ramos and Compean deserve to be pardoned and returned to their families for Christmas,"

I must say I agree with Hunter on this point. (actually on enough points that he's probably my second choice among the presidential candidates, but that's beside the point of this posting)

I think President Bush has generally done a good job of fighting the war against Terrorists (more properly labeled Islamic fascists); But I continue to be concerned about the personal war Bush is apparently waging against American Sovereignty. His unwillingness to pardon Ramos and Compeon is just more evidence of the biggest glaring fault that can be seen in his presidency; his failure to protect our borders from illegal invaders and outright promotion of turning over parts of our country and culture to the "re-conquistas".

Friday, December 14, 2007

O'Reilly Fair on Faith, Spins on Immigration

I'll have to admit that Bill O'Reilly was civil rather than hostile in tonights interview with Mike Huckabee and Chuck Norris. The two issues he touched on were Liberal attacks on Huckabee's faith and illegal immigration.

Huckabee was asked about religious attacks and O'Reilly gave him a fair chance to respond on the subject. However, O'Reilly still seems stuck in the "secular government" rut. He said something about Huckabee executing his office as Governor of Arkansas in a "secular" way; which he seemed to have intended as a compliment.

It makes me wonder if Bill really doesn't get the fact that religious freedom, rather than secularism, is a cornerstone of our country's founding. Religious freedom certainly allows for a secular world-view, but they are not by any means the same thing.

O'Reilly then brought up illegal immigration, playing cuts from Huckabee's first commercial with Chuck Norris. Norris was then asked what he thought about being Huckabee's plan for border security, as per the obvious joke from the Huckabee commercial. What O'Reilly didn't do, however, was offer Huckabee himself a chance to speak about the immigration issue.

With the fact that Mike Huckabee recently released a nine-point plan for immigration enforcement and border security, I'm disappointed in O'Reilly for not doing his homework enough to ask about it. I'm also a bit disappointed in Huckabee for not forcing himself to be rude to the Spin-Meister at least long enough to push out that vital bit of information. (I guess it could have been edited out, but I think it was a live interview)

While I didn't notice Bill O'Reilly saying anything directly untrue, it seemed he was trying to leave the impression that Mike Huckabee is a bit of a light-weight on immigration. Let's see; giving only part of the information or allowing only part of the answer, in a way that leads to an inaccurate conclusion is called... uh...hmm... what was that again? Oh yeah.. SPIN!

Huckabee Shows Fiscal Conservatism

I was just listening to a Mike Huckabee interview on BlogTalkRadio with Ed Morrissey, and heard him say something I think all of us Fiscal Conservatives have been waiting to hear said so plainly from one of the current Preasidential candidates.

Morrissey asked questions about the size and role of the federal government. Here are some of my favorite parts of Huckabee's responses in this area:
  • "What government really ought to do is to provide a sort framework in which we can live our lives with as much liberty and freedom and with as little government as possible."
  • "Essentially my attitude would be that Government should protect it's people but shouldn't provide for them. It's up to us to provide for ourselves."
  • "I'm a big believer that education is a function of the states, not the federal government. If there is any role at all; and there doesn't have to be one; but if there is one, it's to be a clearing-house for the best-practices of the states."
  • "The concept is that we have a limited federal government, with power pushed to the states and to the local communities."
Please don't take these quotes out of context and think Huckabee has some secret plan for ending all social programs and taking a slash-and-burn approach to reducing the size of government. These are general statements on his philosophy regarding the role of government, and as such this is the heartbeat of fiscal conservatism!

One thing Huckabee desperately needs to do, is to say these things more often and louder. By louder, I mean he needs to fight to make space for these statements whenever he has a higher profile interview or event. ( such as those Hannity and Colmes hit-pieces where all they seem to want is to bring up the smears against him)

He needs to be really careful when sharing his views about what "we" should do in regard to things like education, health care, are helping the poor. Having spent a good deal of time watching and listening to Huckabee; I understand the "we" of these statements to range from State government to Federal government to Local Government to the collective effect of individual actions; as appropriate to the subject under discussion.

But there is a tendency to think the "we" must mean the Federal government when coming from a candidate for the highest Federal office. This is especially true for those whose only exposure to the candidate in question has been "drive-by media" sound bites. It's this misunderstanding that has allowed some to erroneously pin a "big-government liberal" label on him. This has served as a weapon of mass distraction for social liberals who don't want voters to notice Huckabee is the only candidate (among those getting serious attention) who is serious about social conservatism.

So Huckabee needs to make clear who the "we" is when talking about the need for social action. And while he's in no danger of joining the teeny-tiny-government-libertarian camp; he needs to be much more insistent about sharing his smaller-government-conservatism. Because when you hear Mike Huckabee say these things, you can tell he means them.

Friday, December 7, 2007

Kudos to Romney on Faith Speech

Just because he's not my choice for President, doesn't mean I can't recognize the positive contribution Mitt Romney made with his speech on Faith. Some are saying he was wrong not to specifically include atheists in his speech.

Wait a minute... "wrong"? Yes, even atheists have things they consider "right" and "wrong". From where I sit, any belief that includes a moral code is a religion. The only distinction is that in atheism and humanism, it is man (whether individual or plural) who is seen as the source of the moral code, rather than God. So by including all "religions", Romney did include atheists and humanists.

Because some have attributed the timing of Romney's speech to the rapid rise of Mike Huckabee (also a former Baptist minister) in the polls, I want to mention two things. First, that Mike Huckabee strongly denounced an Iowa push-pole that brought up the question of Romney's religious beliefs. Second, that Huckabee himself has also been the target of repeated attacks on his religion; primarily over the fact that he was a minister and his strong belief in Divine Creation.

Like the upset of these atheists over Romney's speech, I think the attacks against both men are probably grounded in a disdain for anyone who actually believes the basis for "right and wrong" comes from a Divine source, and is not subject to our human whims.

also see:
No Law Respecting An Establishment of Religion
Huckabee accused of believing in God
A Candidate with Moral Clarity

Wednesday, December 5, 2007

A Crow Dinner for Bill O'Reilly

As of today, Mike Huckabee holds a solo first place in the Rasmussen "Daily Presidential Tracking Poll".
  • Huckabee 20%
  • Giuliani 17%
  • Romney 13%
  • McCain 13%
  • Thompson 10%
I can't help but be reminded that Bill O'Reilly recently lost a steak-dinner wager with Dick Morris, when Huckabee reached 10% in another poll; an event the master of the supposed "No-Spin Zone" said would never happen. Even after losing his bet with Morris, O'Reilly has repeatedly said Huckabee "has no chance".

In light of Huckabee reaching the number one position in the Rasmussen poll, and at double the percentage O'Reilly said he'd never reach; I'd like to state publicly that I would be more than happy to by Mr O'Reilly a "crow dinner".

Tuesday, December 4, 2007

Who Do You Trust?

With the new Rasmussen "Daily Presidential Tracking Poll" showing Mike Huckabee in a tie for first place with Rudy Giuliani; I'd like to offer my opinion on how the new "Man from Hope" has made such gains on the Golden Boy of the NYC news elites. I think it has a lot to do with the attacks made in recent days, including in the CNN YouTube Republican debate , against both Huckabee and Giuliani on their respective perceived weaknesses.

Both were questioned, in the YouTube debate (an obvious far-left-leaning assault against Republicans), about their history regarding illegal immigration. Mitt Romney accused Giuliani of a sort of passive amnesty for illegal immigrants in running New York as a sanctuary city; and accused Huckabee of what is basically leniency regarding the children of illegals applying for scholarships in Arkansas.

Although a hard-liners on immigration like me don't agree with Huckabee's position on children brought here (possibly born here) by parents who broke our immigration laws; it's a far cry from giving sanctuary to the lawbreakers themselves, as seems to be the case in Giuliani's record. Still, this is at least a perceived weakness for both candidates.

Apart from immigration, each has been labeled as lacking in conservative in a different area. For Huckabee, some have questioned his credentials as a fiscal conservative, primarily over a few tax increases he agreed to as governor of Arkansas. For Rudy his long standing positions of supporting abortion-on-demand, gun control and gay-unions are a challenge indicate a lack of social conservatism.

In Huckabee's defense, he offers statistics of having cut taxes over 90 times, reducing discretionary spending, and balancing the Arkansas budget. Meanwhile, Giuliani offers to "nominate strict-constructionist judges" when asked about abortion; says gay-unions should be a matter for the states (as does Fred Thompson); and pays a weak lip-service (it seems to me) to the Second Amendment by claiming the Federal Government doesn't have the same authority cities (and possibly states) do in the area of gun control.

I think it all comes down to a matter of trust. Do you believe those making the accusations, or do you believe the candidate's defense? This is where character really counts in the public eye. I think today's Rasmussen poll results are a good indication of who people think more likely to live up to promises to secure our border; and that people trust Mike Huckabee to be a Fiscal Conservative more than they trust Rudy Giuliani to be a Social Conservative.

Monday, December 3, 2007

The Perfect Liberal Presidential Candidate

I don't consider myself a Liberal by any means. However, I've just posted about my ideal of a perfect Conservative Presidential candidate; and am asking for reader comments on the same. I thought I should create a separate place for any liberals wandering by to leave their comments on liberal "perfection."

The Perfect Conservative Presidential Candidate

I'll admit that in my view there is no "perfect" candidate in the current field of Presidential hopefuls. Nevertheless, I want to list some characteristics and issue positions that I think would make my "perfect" candidate. I'd also like to see comments on what others would like in a candidate.

Moral Values Issues:
  • Human life is sacred, from the earliest moments in the womb until the last breath leaves the body. While I see potential for some "gray" area in extremely rare cases such as detectable fetal abnormalities that would be fatal outside the womb, or pregnancies almost certainly fatal for mother and child; abortion as a convenience absolutely must end. It's nothing less than murder. Likewise, "euthanasia" is an abomination. Therefore, I demand a candidate that will actively work for a sanctity of life amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Good examples of this are the one passed in Arkansas under Governor Huckabee, and the one currently under consideration by the Georgia state legislature. "Overturning Roe-vs-Wade" on grounds of sloppy adjudication (which it was), is desirable, but not enough at this point.
  • Homosexual unions cannot be government sanctioned at any level in any form. No "gay-marriage", no "civil unions", and no supposed "anti-discrimination for sexual orientation" laws. Any governmental stamp of approval on the practice of homosexuality would not only be supporting a religious abomination, but would be nothing less than a powerful weapon for anti-Christian activists to use in attacking religious free speech, is the guise of slander and "hate-speech." A candidate must support a federal preservation of marriage amendment, as between one man and one woman. While homosexual unions do touch on a religious issue, this is not particular to just one sect ("an establishment of religion" in the Constitution) or a small subset of religious bodies. Plus is has widespread consequences if we allow general disruption of our basic social structure.
  • Religious Free Speech is not only a long-standing tradition in America; it is absolutely demanded by our Constitution. While I can't think of additional legislation required, a candidate must firmly express the importance of this value and a return to a proper view of the First Amendment. That view is for freedom of Religious and Political speech. It is not for suppression or religion and promotion of vulgarity and pornography, as modern liberals have successfully misused it in our courts.

National Security:
  • The USA is a sovereign nation, owing no higher allegiance to any international governing body
  • The USA absolutely must do it's utmost to become energy independent as quickly as possible; otherwise it will be at the mercy of other oil-producing nations for the remainder of it's needs.

Personal Characteristics:
  • Has a history of demonstrating achievement in line with his positions
  • Has lived faithfully in marriage and never divorced
  • Demonstrates a belief in the God of the Bible (the government is constitutionally prohibited from making this a test, but I as a citizen am not)
  • Is an articulate and engaging speaker, able to clearly and honestly state his positions, be convincing to those who are undecided, and firm but respectful when standing against those with whom he disagrees.
  • Is not given to displays of temper, nor outbursts of vulgar language. (A President must be even-tempered to wield such power)
I'll be adding more to my own list as time allows, and hope to see yours. (Please no comments that are just "I think {candidate name} is the perfect candidate" although you may feel free to include the name of your current choice.

Sunday, December 2, 2007

Ann Coulter on Candidates at NJC

In a question and answer session at the National Journalism Center, Ann Coulter said there are three key core conservative issues where Republican candidates need to be strong. Those are National Defense, Right to Life, and Smaller Government. She also stated her apparent amazement that Rudy Giuliani is considered a Republican front-runner, when he is clearly not a Right to Life candidate.

She was answering an audience question about who she supports for the Republican Presidential nomination. Her initial response was that she most strongly supports Duncan Hunter, while admitting that he doesn't seems likely to succeed. Coulter also revealed that she's not a big fan of Romney, and described Mike Huckabee as the "new John McCain" (marking them both as lacking firm conservative credentials.

When asked directly about Fred Thompson, she made it clear that she hasn't thought much of the former Tennessee Senator since he displayed a lack of backbone by splitting his own vote during the impeachment of Bill Clinton for perjury and suborning perjury. Even with all that, she did say she would support any of the Republican candidates, "even Ron Paul", over any of the Democrats.

I'm a bit confused by Ann Coulter's take on Mike Huckabee. She and I obviously see either a different John McCain or a different Mike Huckabee. Since she also mentioned John Kerry's flip-flops, I assume her swipe at McCain and Huckabee indicated a perceived tendency to sway with the prevailing political winds. I tend to agree regarding McCain, but not with Huckabee. Is Coulter is seeing something I don't, or have I managed to see something she doesn't?

I do applaud her for continuing to support her favorite candidate, even though it's Duncan Hunter. Not that I have anything against Hunter myself. He seems to be a fine man, and I was considering him favorably until I discovered Mike Huckabee. I think if we would each actively support the candidate we like best, the best candidate would win. I happen to think that candidate is Mike Huckabee.

That same philosophy should prevail when choosing a Vice-Presidential running mate.
I suspect many political strategists will suggest Huckabee choose either Giuliani or McCain as running mate in the general election to "broaden the ticket". Personally, I think he should choose someone whose ideals and performance are most like his own. I think it's that person just may be Duncan Hunter, Ann Coulter's first choice and my second.

Although caustic commentary and hyperbole are Coulter's hallmarks, I've usually agreed with her viewpoints. In the case of Mike Huckabee, I have to disagree. Perhaps she just has a hard time believing one can be conservative without being caustic. Huckabee certainly is a dynamic speaker. He's just not at all caustic. But if I remember correctly, neither was Coulter's idol, Ronald Reagan.

Returning to what Ann Coulter said a Republican candidate needs to be; I think it's beyond question that Mike Huckabee is strong on National Defense, and immovable on the Right to Life. I also think if Ann Coulter will examine Huckabee's record and positions in the fiscal arena; she'll discover Mike Huckabee is also a strong proponent of a smaller federal government.

Thursday, November 29, 2007

Romney Scores On Rudy but Misses Huckabee with Immigration Attacks

In last night's CNN YouTube debate, Mitt Romney continued his false characterization of Mike Huckabee's history on the children of illegal aliens. Of course to attack Huckabee, Romney had to mis-state what he actually supported as Governor of Arkansas. Especially since what Huckabee actually supported was practically indistinguishable from what Romney had said was legally required in educating the children of illegals, in just having traded salvos with Rudy Giuliani over giving sanctuary to illegals.

Romney said New York was a sanctuary city for illegal immigrants under Giuliani. Rudy retorted that Romney at one time had illegals working at his "sanctuary mansion". Romney offered clarification that the illegals were brought in by a contractor he hired (supposedly without his knowledge). He then rightfully continued his declaration that Rudy should not have given any sanctuary to illegals, except emergency medical care, and education of their children as required by law. (not an exact quote but I'm sure the meaning is intact)

Later in the debate, Romney claimed that Huckabee wanted to give special treatment to illegal aliens regarding scholarships. What he actually supported, though it was never passed, was basically treating children of illegals the same as known citizens; providing they had attended school in Arkansas all the way from first grade through high school. (There were also other requirements that can be found on Huckabee's website) Under those conditions, the children were too young to have had any choice in crossing the border, and may in fact have been born here; which under current law would make them citizens.

While Romney tried to say Mike Huckabee's explanation sounded like a liberal excuse, to me it sounds like a logical part of the "sanctuary" for children of illegals (not the illegals themselves); which Romney says is already required by law. As for me, I would much rather change both any law that requires educating children of illegals, and that makes all children born here (even those of parents here illegally) citizens. Philosophically, I do hesitate to "punish the children". But the reality is that we currently benefit the children for the crimes of the parents; and a significant benefit to their children is powerful motivation for the parents to commit the crime.

But while I personally disagree with providing any government funded services for illegals (beyond emergency medical care), Huckabee's stance against the illegal invasion in general and for preserving the sovereignty of the United States seem as solid as Plymouth Rock. Sure, I'd like to find a candidate who is perfect in every way. But as Huckabee pointed out in the debate, Jesus was too smart to run for political office*.

*(not to mention born in Bethlehem and therefore not qualified to run for President of the USA, even though Divine)

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

When You "Cry Wolf", Mean It!

I think I finally figured out how to define the frustration I feel with Washington Republicans, and possibly why they lost both houses of Congress. The Republicans have been treating Social conservatives like the Democrats treat "minorities". (I put "minorities" in quotes because we're all Americans. The Democrats just seem bent on dividing us in their attempts to conquer.)

{{Warning! You are about to enter an unrestrained (but still G-rated) "Free Speech" zone! Names have been withheld to protect the innocent, the guilty, and those who don't have a clue what I'm talking about.*}}

Democrats engage in fear-mongering among "minorities"; usually accusing Republicans of things like not "caring" about them, and wanting to return to "Jim Crow" laws. Likewise, Republicans bang the drum on saving us from the Democrat agenda of abortion-as-birth-control, government endorsed gay-unions, and generally promise to preserve the traditional American way of life. The only difference between the two is that "minorities" really have nothing to fear from Republicans, and can do much better than the "daily fish" the Democrats dangle. Both have "cried wolf" far too many times, without showing enough concern about "the wolf" to actually get rid of it. (To make it clear, lest I be accused of promoting something totally irrational; I'm talking about taking care of the issues, not getting rid of the other party.)

The Democrats, are still peddling the same old Johnson-era failed social programs; designed to try and make citizens dependent rather than self-sufficient. They focus first on those whose ancestors were victims of rampant bigotry, and try to convince them that nothing has changed. Meanwhile, rather than taking action that helps to actually raise those who might still be considered to have some starting disadvantage (such as broken homes created by the very social programs the Democrats instituted); they only act to lower those who have achieved by shackling them with crippling taxes and irrational levels of controls on free enterprise.

The Democrat's ultimate end, of course, is to make us all into a dependent class. How else could one possibly explain the recent illogical attempt to expand the S-CHIP program to include 24 year olds making three-times the "poverty level" in income; but as a head-start on enslaving us all to government run, socialized medicine. Anyone who disagrees with the President's recent veto of the S-CHIP travesty needs to pay more attention! (That doesn't include closet socialists, who should either become enlightened as to the virtues of mildly-monitored capitalism under a representative republic; or move to Canada and get it over with!)

As for the GOP, they perpetually point out the existing tendency of Democrats to expand government to the point of being an all-controlling socialistic "Big-Brother" on fiscal issues, and being unrestrained libertines on social issues. Meanwhile the Republican leadership takes no serious action to actually slow abortions, take a stand against sexual degradation (including the false idea that pornography is protected "free speech"), or to get serious about protecting our borders. Like most Democrats, most Republicans seem to think that if they actually solve the problems they speak about (real or inflated), they won't have enough fears left to lure their respective voters to the polls.

Now we have a field of Republican presidential candidates, of whom only one has done more than pay lip service to the issues most dear to Christian Conservatives; and I'm not positive even he is quite as firm on the issue of illegal invaders as I'd prefer) Meanwhile a few big-name supposed "Christian leaders" are joining internationalist country-club libertarian-republicans to assault that lone voice of moral reason.

As one of those "Christian Conservatives" who have been the life raft of the Republican party; I'm getting sick and tired of keeping them afloat while most of their supposed "front-runners" snicker up their collective sleeves at the very values that give us buoyancy.


{{sound of an enormous sigh}}
We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming...beeeep...

*{PS:Those who don't have a clue what I'm talking about should try listening to Rush Limbaugh once in a while!}
{PPS: Reading David Limbaugh's book "Persecution" wouldn't hurt either.}

Monday, November 26, 2007

Doing the Next Right Thing

A recent Zogby poll shows Mike Huckabee poised to defeat Hillary Clinton by the greatest margin of any Republican candidate. While I'm pleased by the news, I don't think it changes what voters should be doing one bit.

Those using the "Huckabee isn't electable" ploy as a red herring to draw voters to another candidate will simply find some other excuse. It's more convenient than admitting they don't really care about the moral values they claim to stand for and that Huckabee really does. Meanwhile, there are those to whom those issues really are dear, but are reluctant to become involved without prior assurance of the desired outcome. To those, I suggest they are unwittingly practicing "Situation Ethics."

Sure there may be times when we're not sure of the right course. But some things, like protecting a helpless child, are always right. Some things, like promoting rampant sexual immorality or personal violence, are always wrong. When we avoid doing the right thing or excuse doing the wrong thing because of convenience or because the situation seems to impact our ego, we're acting as if we've "moved" an immovable boundary.

As per a quote I've heard attributed to numerous sources; "all that's required for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." Well unless our country and our government are perfect; and will be just as good no matter who our elected officials are; somebody needs to do something. In a representative republic, such as the United States of America, each of us is that "somebody."

Don't wait until you're sure you see an assurance of success all the way down the road. Find the next right thing you can do and do it! While it's conceivable, however unlikely*, that I might find it necessary to support another candidate after the primaries; right now the only candidate I can support is Mike Huckabee. So writing this blog, talking to people I meet and sending contributions to the Huckabee campaign when I can are each "the next right thing" to do, as I am presented with those opportunities. (I wish the counter at the top of my blog could include the contributions I made before the widget was developed, so the reader could see that while not rich, I'm serious. Perhaps readers will help turn it up a bit.)

I hope the path of "right things" will lead in the direction I think it will. But I have faith that if each of us will keep doing the next right thing as it's presented to us; that together we will arrive at the right destination.

(video framed from the "You be the Somebody" post at

*The choice seems so clear to me that I almost felt my fingers burning just to type that I might support someone else later! And for clarification, I can't see myself EVER supporting someone like Giuliani, who is unquestionably a moral relativist.

Tuesday, November 20, 2007

A Candidate with Moral Clarity

On the Glenn Beck radio program today, he and Bill Bennett were discussing the Presidential race. After immediately dismissing the current field of Democrat candidates, Bennett said what we need most right now is a President with "moral clarity".

The Zig Ziglar endorsement of Mike Huckabee certainly describes a man who has moral clarity. Among other praise, Ziglar calls him "a man who's word is his bond." He also says Huckabee is; "a good person that knows where our country needs to go, and I believe he's been preparing all of his life, to take us right there."


When the presidential race initially started, I was somewhat distressed that while I saw a few who showed some degree of fiscal discipline; I didn't see a candidate who also had a clear record of integrity on moral issues. But that was before I discovered Mike Huckabee.

Now I urge you to take a look at Mike Huckabee; and if you also find him to be that man with moral clarity, please give him your support. Pass on this blog and the Huckabee website to those your friends. Please also use the "widget" at the top of this blog to go to the Huckabee website and contribute to his campaign.

Does Limbaugh Like Mike?

In response to a caller who asked Rush Limbaugh why he doesn't promote Duncan Hunter, Rush answers that it's the job of the candidates to promote themselves; and that he avoids picking a candidate in the primaries. (link to guest transcript)

Part of Rush's description of what candidates should do sounds quite a bit like Mike Huckabee to me. This included the tip that to "get out of the bottom tier" a candidate would need "a really humongous debate performance". I took this as a veiled reference to Huckabee, especially when coupled with a comment Rush made about "going against somebody that's going to benefit from all the conventional wisdom, the media and others."

Just a few days earlier Rush commented about how a Huckabee was poised to "throw all the conventional wisdom out the window" with a win in Iowa. To read those comments, click here for Rush's "Stack of Stuff Quick Hits" page; then go down to "Story #6: On the Cutting Edge:Huckabee Surges in Iowa".

Rush also took a small swipe at the conservatism of some candidates, saying that journalists from Washington and New York; "are willing to overlook, in some cases, the lack of genuine conservatism in some candidates because they're from the northeast." Can I be the only one to whom this sounds like it at least includes Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani? Click on this LINK to the transcript at

True to his word, Rush Limbaugh continues to play it close to the vest. I don't claim that Huckabee is the only candidate he views favorably. But with comments like, "I just sit and watch until one of them surfaces", in context of the above; it doesn't require much reading between the lines to conclude Rush likes Mike.

Also read my previous post: Rush Credits Huckabee with Best debate statement on Hillary

Use the above Limbaugh links soon, while still available to guests; or subscribe to Rush 24/7 for full access. It's money well spent, that I recommend almost as much as contributing to the Mike Huckabee Campaign!

Saturday, November 17, 2007

No Law Respecting An Establishment of Religion

I've seen a few express concern over the religious affiliation or connection of one or more of the Republican Presidential candidates. These have mainly focused on Mitt Romney's Mormon faith, or the fact that Mike Huckabee was a Baptist minister, before he became Governor of Arkansas.

One example is the recent "push poll" that apparently seeks to make voters uneasy about Romney on the basis of particular beliefs, apparently held by the Mormon church. While I think it not only more appropriate, but a better strategy, to question the sincerity of Romney's recently reacquired pro-life stance, I find it absolutely despicable to attempt what the First Amendment was expressly crafted to avoid. That is in using differences between particular "establishment[s] of religion" to fight for political control along "sectarian" lines.

A more rational example is an apparently genuine question of concern by Robert Roach; which he entered as a comment on one of the "What Leadership Looks Like" Blog post at Part of Robert's comment was; "I strongly believe in the separation of church and state. To that effect, I am somewhat offended by the level of 'religious' comments on the Huckabee site. I would like to believe that as "Americans" the majority of you support the Governor, not as 'Christians.' "

In an attempt to assuage the concerns of those who might share Robert's concerns, I offer the following:
I understand your concern and I share your concern over the intermingling of government and religion. The phrase you quote; "separation of church and state"; while actually part of a Thomas Jefferson letter to the Danbury Baptists rather than part of the Constitution, is often used to describe this concern.

You may be surprised to learn that much of the "Christian" enthusiasm you see here is a result of sharing your concern rather than a desire for a "national church" of some kind. In my case, at least, it comes from a real desire to return to a Constitutional relationship between religion and government, which has the government looking favorably upon religious speech and practice in general, but never selecting or promoting a specific religious faction.

Too often in recent times, has the phrase "no law respecting an establishment of religion" been misconstrued to mean the government should be disrespectful toward religion and religious expression. In the words of Joseph Story (an early supreme court Justice) from his multi-volume commentary on the US Constitution, in his section on the Bill of Rights:

"§ 1871. The real object of the amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government.It thus cut off the means of religious persecution, (the vice and pest of former ages,) and of the subversion of the rights of conscience in matters of religion, which had been trampled upon almost from the days of the Apostles to the present age."

A full reading of Justice Story's section on the First Amendment explains that the same wording that prevents a specific Christian sect from becoming an arm of the National Government, also ensures citizens are free to follow non-Christian religions, or no religion; without governmental interference and with equal protection under the law. (this would of course not apply to supposedly religious practice involving things like "honor-killing", polygamy, "child-marriage", etc)

The first amendment has all to do with preventing the government from running a church, and nothing to do with preventing religiously minded citizens from using the moral values grounded in Christianity (or any other religion) from becoming active participants in the political process.

I only ask to be allowed to work for laws that recognize values such as the sanctity of life and the importance of marriage (as per traditional definition), without being silenced by a militantly-secular court; on the false grounds that since those values are part of Christianity, such laws are an establishment of religion; And further that I that must be silent about my faith or be found guilty of a hate crime, simply for speaking peacefully.

Unless I'm very much mistaken, thats all most of the very vocal "Christians" want too. Sure, I'd like to peacefully persuade others to believe as I do; but only by sharing the Bible with those willing to listen and NEVER by the force of government. Not only would that not be American, it wouldn't be Christian! Furthermore, and no disrespect intended, I'm certainly NOT supporting Mike Huckabee for national preacher. But I do share the pro-life, and pro-family positions he says are rooted in his faith, and which are are rooted in mine.

Though there are many other planks of the Huckabee platform that would already make him my favorite choice as President, I'll readily admit that it's these common views on "faith based issues" that make him my only choice for President. Again, it's not because we are of the same Christian "sect" (to those who focus on religious divisions, we would definitely not be seen as such). It's because we share the same goals on issues.

Please also see my earlier post:
Where Mike Huckabee is Wrong (but it's "Alright")

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

Huckabee "Least Scripted", yet most consistent

I just finished listening to the Michael Medved interview with Mike Huckabee. During the interview, the popular talk-show host and contributor called Huckabee "the least scripted candidate" in the presidential race.

In listening to Huckabee's subsequent responses to Medved's questions, I noticed that while he gave answers completely consistent with previous answers to similar questions in other places; it didn't seem at all "scripted". I did find the timing a bit ironic, considering the recent revelation of questions being planted for Hillary Clinton to answer. It also highlights her recent trouble with stating a clear position on giving driver's licenses to illegals.

When one consistently holds the same positions, as Mike Huckabee does, I guess it's easier to give consistent answers without being "scripted". Perhaps Hillary, along with many of the other waffling candidates, could take a few lessons from Mike Huckabee in this regard.

Then again, the dedicated moral character Huckabee shows might be a prerequisite. If the Dick Morris' analysis of the "real" Hillary Clinton (as per his book "Rewriting History") is even close to the truth; I'm not sure whether she's able to learn the lesson Huckabee is teaching.

After the interview, Michael Medved went on to give an analysis of the Republican primary race that I found very astute. He envisions Iowa as pivotal in determining which of the Pro-Life candidates will challenge Rudy Giuliani for the nomination. Medved includes Huckabee, Romney and McCain in his list of (in the running) pro-lifers, but acknowledges Romney's changing positions on abortion (and gay-advocacy).

Like many analysts, he says Huckabee has a real shot; whether he finishes first or second in Iowa(which he now seems almost certain to do). He admits (wearily) having heard the naysayers questioning whether Huckabee can win; but sees Huckabee, Romney, Rudy, and McCain (whom he also likes) with an equal chance. He sees the real question as whether the Republican party will be true to it's long term commitment to life.

I would restate the choice as simply whether or not the Republican party will continue to have a "soul." Going with Mr. Medved's scenario, I think that question will be answered by whether Mike Huckabee or Rudy Giuliani is the Republican nominee.

Faith First!

I was reading a recent blog post on, when I came across the comments of a Romneyite acting in a way that obviously marked him as what Rush Limbaugh would label a "seminar caller". (i.e. "I really agree with you but in this case you should change your mind")

To begin with, I found it amusing, that someone would try such an obvious tactic as wait until next election for Huckabee and support Romney now; But as I entered my own comment on why I found his suggestion unacceptable, I grew more passionate in my response. Part of this probably came from my feelings about recent unfathomable announcements by supposed religious/moral leaders who chose to endorse candidates that either are or have been supporters of abortion-on-demand and/or government sanction of homosexual-unions. Although probably not the most eloquent writing (even by my poor standards), I thought it worth copying here as a post:

WOW, Romney and/or his supporters must be worried to try and distract us with comments like those of "AZ, RHR".

To me it's simple. The two issues that are most import right now are Sanctity of Life and stemming the tide of Homosexual-mainstreaming.

I only trust 3 candidates on these two issues; Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, and Tom Tancredo. I will not vote for a ticket with anyone but one of these three at the top. Period, that's it.

I've come to the point in my absolute revulsion with the moral direction our country has been drifting that, if the Republicans nominate a candidate soft on moral issues, I'll take it as a sign we need to "hit bottom".

No insult intended to the other two candidates, but I think Mike Huckabee has the most passion on those two subjects. It doesn't hurt that I also really like his take on FairTax, National Sovereignty, Energy Independence, etc. So he's my first choice.

I don't agree at all with RHR's claim that Romney is "more fiscally conservative". The accusation about Huckabee's supposed "big government" spending seem to be all infrastructure issues. Hate to tell you, but that IS a function of government! The challenge in those areas is not elimination, but managing them in a responsible way, which Huckabee has done.

Again to my bottom line: try reading Matt 6:24-34, about making God or money your main concern. To quote verse 33; "But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you."

I would rather live in a tent in a nation that upholds Godly principles and honors God, than a mansion in a nation that holds life cheep and holds perverse sexual practices in the same light as the marriage of one man and one woman. I am also absolutely confident that seeking God first, including voting for candidates upholding Godly values, will make it less likely that we suffer financial ruin than if we neglected God to focus on chasing money. (Let me make clear, I'm not talking about choosing God to get money, but the idea that blindly choosing money over God will eventually lead us to ruin; including financial ruin.)

Now can anyone tell me how I could possible in good faith accept Romney, McCain, Thompson, or Giuliani; or why I would conceivably choose any other candidate above Mike Huckabee?!?

Thursday, November 8, 2007

Mike Huckabee Shows Faith By His Works

While reading a recently promoted blog entry (and associated video) from Mike Huckabee titled "Our Faith Makes Us", it struck me that many of his statements shared thematic elements with the 2nd chapter of James. Not that I'm by any means placing on par with God's Word; but then Huckabee is running for President, not Divine Creator. However, it does seem obvious that the former Governor of Arkansas has spent some serious time with those writings originating from the ultimate author.

"Real faith makes us humble and mindful, not of the faults of others, but of our own. Because of our faith, we become less judgmental in that we see others having the same frailties as ourselves." - Mike Huckabee

"If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors." - James 2:8-9 KJV

Reading and listening to Huckabee's words, it becomes clear he understands that while the Government should never run the church, Christians must not shrink from participating in the government and the political process. While we should not be politically divisive over sectarian labels, we must use our whole value system in voting and governing. That includes holding firm to Christian principles.

"Recently, out on the campaign trail, a voter asked if my personal faith informed my decisions. My answer was simple, just as it always has been: my faith is my life - it defines me. My faith doesn't influence my decisions, it drives them. ... Faith gives us strength in the face of injustice and motivates us to do our best for 'the least of us.' " - Mike Huckabee

"What [doth it] profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be [ye] warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what [doth it] profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone." - James 2:14-17 KJV

We American Christians should be especially grateful that we are privileged to be citizens of a country where we, through our representatives, can help shape the policies of our nation. Since we are also citizens of a higher country, we have a responsibility to do so in keeping with our primary allegiance to our Heavenly King.

As Huckabee so eloquently points out; rights and responsibilities do not come to us from the government, but are granted by the sovereign Creator. "They are God's gift to us as individuals, not government's gift to us as a group." In our representative republic, we in turn loan powers to the government. Therefore, we must make sure to support, elect, and then hold accountable leaders who show their Faith by their works, and not just by their words.

"Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works." - James 2:18 KJV

In light of that passage, although I hesitate, I feel compelled to go at least a single step in a direction other than the gracious route chosen by Mike Huckabee in his comments on the Pat Robertson endorsement of Rudy Giuliani. I simply can't understand how any Christian could in good conscience endorse a known supporter of both abortion-on-demand and gay-mainstreaming, simply because he now proclaims he would appoint "constructionist judges."

I wholeheartedly suggest reading both the 2nd chapter of James, and Mike Huckabee's "Our Faith Makes Us" (plus watching the video). Then search out the history of each candidate and evaluate them in the light of James 2, and this quote from Matthew 7:20 - "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."

Wednesday, November 7, 2007

Hillary Down, Huckabee Up, O'Reilly admits defeat

In the CNN Polls, released Nov-5; Mike Huckabee was up and Hillary Clinton was down.

To be fair, Clinton (in addition to being pre-coronated president by the left-wing media) was still first among Democrats, although her ranking fell from 51% in Oct to 44% in November. The really amazing thing is that the very next day, CNN posted a story questioning the value of polls this far from the election. The result was that three places above the CNN link titled "Poll: Clinton's Support Slips", was another reading "Analysis: Polls poor predictors."

One would think such a "coincidence" to be a big enough show of Clintonian bias, but apparently it wasn't a massive enough display for CNN. The latter story seems to promise a tale of general polling inaccuracies this far out; But in a flip flop on the scale of Hillary's recent responses on giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, CNN basically says that Hillary's coronation by the Democrats is already assured. They then claim the Republicans are in for a "topsy-turvy year."

In that at least, it seems they may be right. The only constant in Republican polling seems to be Rudy Giuliani as the national front-runner; at least so far. But one detail in the CNN poll results tends to confirm the vulnerability of Rudy's lead that has been speculated about in other places. Rudy is reported to still lead among Republicans with 28%. CNN also gleefully reports that 18% of Republicans intend to defect to a Pro-Life third-party, if Giuliani takes the GOP nomination; in an apparent repeat of the Ross Perot scenario (over Bush 41's "no-new-taxes" and "new-world-order") that put Bill Clinton in power.

Meanwhile, the CNN poll showing Mike Huckabee at 10% seems to have been the proof Bill O'Reilly was waiting for. Despite the fact that Huckabee has been between in double digits in the Rasmussen national tracking polls since October 25th, O'Reilly finally conceded on his program Tuesday evening that he owes Dick Morris a steak dinner as the winner of their dispute over whether those polled would ever "like Mike" enough for the "other man from Hope" to reach the 10% milestone.

By some coincidence (or could it be Providence), adding the 18% of dedicated pro-life voters to Huckabee's 10% equals (you guessed it) Rudy's 28%. Of it's likely that some of the 18% are already Huckabee supporters. But the total percentage for candidates at least generally seen as social conservatives is 40% (19% Thompson, 11% Romney, 10% Huckabee). In a poll run by strongly liberal CNN, that's saying a lot.

After Iowa and New Hampshire primaries, social conservatives will probably gravitate toward the one of those three who is the best combination of getting the highest percentage of votes in Iowa (the more conservative of the two states), has the most consistent record as a social conservative, and is the most motivating speaker. So which highly motivating speaker both has the most solid record as a social conservative and is currently polling very well in Iowa? Mike Huckabee of course; and in the Rasmussen polls (historicaly more reliable than CNN's), he's currently in 3rd and moving up, with Thompson showing a significant downward trend and Romney somewhere between stagnant and a slow decline.

If these trends continue, CNN's postulation of Rudy's nomination and an ultimate Hillary victory will be a poor poll prediction indeed. In Huckabee, Pro-life voters would get a President determined not only to appoint judges fair to their cause (to which Rudy gives lip-service), but to actively urge congress to pass pro-life laws. I hope Dick Morris enjoys his steak dinner. O'Reilly certainly made Huckabee work for it!

Monday, November 5, 2007

Where Mike Huckabee is Wrong...(but it's "alright")

As Mike Huckabee has been continually hammered about believing in Creation rather than Evolution; it concerned me that concerned me that he seemed to be evasive about upholding a Biblical, six-day Creation, even though he has been consistently adamant that he believes God is responsible for our being, rather than random chance. The reason I found this troubling is because he always seemed so clear and fearless in every other answer, to any question of significance.

The answer to this quandary is one I only barely suspected, but it was made clear upon watching the Nov-1 Charlie Rose interview. As part of this interview, Charlie Rose piled-on to the Creation-vs-Evolution attacks on Huckabee. This included a demonstrably false statement by Rose to the effect that new discoveries in molecular biology support Darwinism; immediately after which he proceeded with his questions about Governor Huckabee's views on evolution. [In fact, discoveries in molecular biology such as the multi-part flagellar motor are exactly the type of (what we now call) irreducible complexity that Darwin wrote would falsify his theory.]

As part of his answer, Huckabee referenced Francis Collins, author of "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief". According to a Time Magazine article, Collins concludes that God "preplanned the process of mutation and selection at time's beginning, knowing it would produce humanity." Mike Huckabee isn't the first sincere believer to fall into the trap of theistic evolution (which Collins renames "BioLogos" in his writtings). He's in the company of C.S. Lewis, who Huckabee also references in the Rose interview.

So there was the answer. What I initially feared might be reluctance to completely stand up for Creation, seems simply to be the result of a lack of knowledge regarding the subject rather than a lack of fortitude. From a Biblical perspective, both a scholarly analysis of Genesis in Hebrew and multiple subsequent references ( including a quote from the Son of God himself) make clear that the six days of the Genesis creation narrative(s) are really six days, not six "ages" as theistic evolutionists suppose.

I also think theistic-evolution is scientifically dishonest. Theistic-evolution seems to have originally been a construct of those who were rightly firm in believing that God is the Creator; but who felt overwhelmed by the supposed scientific evidence of the "geologic column" and other "Icons of Evolution". The supposed "geologic column" and the postulated era's of neo-Darwinism reveal themselves as nothing more than exercises in circular logic, to those who dive whole-heartedly into an investigation of more modern research in the subject. (i.e. "The fossils are millions of years old because rocks they are in are that old; and the rocks are millions of years old because the fossils in them are that old.") Most, if not all, of the other "Icons of Evolution" have now been shown to be either demonstrably false or highly questionable.

Although I have a passion for Creation apologetics, and demand scientific accuracy and honesty; my real purpose in this post is not to castigate Mike Huckabee for apparent shortcomings in this area. Rather is it to allay fears that he is being either weak, or disingenuous in his responses. To echo statements he himself has made, he is neither seeking a position as our national preacher, nor as the author of an eighth-grade science curriculum. It's more important that as a candidate for President of the United States, he has demonstrated the following (shown by the included imperfect quotes, as I remember them):
  1. The wisdom to see the true foundational question behind the question ["What you're really asking is if I believe in God"]
  2. The humility to admit the limits of his knowledge ["now as to exactly when God did it or how long it took, I'm not really sure. I wasn't there..."]
  3. The integrity to stand firm for what he honestly believes ["but I believe God did it; and in the words of Martin Luthor, 'here I stand, for I can do no other'"]
So to those who share my belief in a "recent*", six-day creation; and have been expressing disappointment that Mike Huckabee seems to be soft when it comes to completely standing up for his beliefs on creation; I say he simply doesn't seem to completely share our belief. While I agree with them that he's wrong, I say it's "alright"; at least politically speaking. Theologically speaking, we can pray he gains a more complete knowledge in the same prayers we make that someone standing up for Christian values becomes president (and that we all grow in our understanding of and commitment to God's Word).

We may find this somewhat disappointing on an emotional level, and we might have to object if he were applying to fill the pulpit at our local congregation. However, a Huckabee supporter who finds this a "deal-breaker" is at least as much in error as the atheist who won't support him solely because he was once a minister.

[also see my previous posts regarding; - "Expelled; No Intelligence Allowed!" by Ben Stein and Huckabee accused of believing in God]

[*While even I suspect the 4004 B.C. date calculated by "Bishop Ussher" may be one of which we can't be confident; both an honest reading of the Bible and a growing body of scientific evidence preclude the multiple millions of years demanded by Darwinists.]

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Huckabee Has Crossed the Delaware!

The significance of George Washington crossing the Delaware was more than just that it resulted in a single victory at Trenton. It was a major turning point in the American Revolution.

During the year prior to December of 1776, Washington's army had suffered a number of losses at the hands of against the British and their Hessian mercenaries. Though they believed fiercely in the cause of American Liberty, they simply didn't have the resources to make significant headway against the crown. To quote the website of the Washington Crossing Historic Park; "Enlistments were down, desertion was high, and monies from Congress were unavailable."

Seeing a chance for victory on that Christmas night of 1776, Washington and his men marched on (many of them with rag-wrapped feet) across the frozen ground and into the boats. Battling the elements, the enemy troops, and their own instinct for survival , Washington and those American Patriots won the battle at Trenton.

Their victory was a signal to those who previously hesitated to join in what they feared was a hopeless fight; that Liberty was in sight and this was a war that could be won! As a result, the ranks of Washington's army swelled. And though there was still a long hard road ahead, they fought on to win Freedom for the American colonies, and to forge this great nation of ours.

So how does this relate to Mike Huckabee?
Until recently, many failed to see Huckabee as a "top tier" candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. For the major media outlets, it seemed fiscal conservatism, the war with Islamic Fascists, and possibly protecting our borders were the only issues deemed relevant. In those areas, there appears to be little difference among the top fund-raisers, or any of the candidates for that matter excepting one who should really be running as a Libertarian.

It seemed as if fund-raising itself was the primary issue with which the media was really concerned. When they spoke of Mike Huckabee at all, many conceded that he was an excellent speaker and acknowledged his well rounded conservative credentials, but insisted he really couldn't win; frankly for no other reason than because (in their eyes at least) he hadn't been winning. Still Huckabee pressed on, bit by bit gaining supporters in mind if not in wallet.

Then came Christmas! Not that it came by any means as a gift, wrapped up in a bow. Rather, like the circumstances presented Washington and his men on that Christmas night of determination, there came a window of opportunity for Mike Huckabee to show his mettle.
  • In Late September, Dr. James Dobson revealed that some politically active evangelicals were prepared to mount a third-party effort, if Republicans nominated a social liberal. This started gaining attention in early-mid October. Huckabee's response was to stand for both social conservatism and unity. While he did suggest that those with such concerns should more actively back his nomination; he said would not seek nor accept a third party invitation, regardless of the Republican outcome. While not directly affecting the Huckabee campaign, this seems to have significantly increased media attention given to the Oct 19-21 Values Voter Summit.
  • October 18: Respected Kansas Senator Sam Brownback ended his presidential bid, citing lack of support. One reason Huckabee was seen as the likely beneficiary of this decision: Of the three consistent social conservatives, the Iowa straw poll results showed Brownback behind Huckabee and ahead of Duncan Hunter.
  • October 2o: Results of the Values Voters Straw Poll (held online in conjunction with the FRC Action's 2nd Annual Washington Breifing) showed Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney nearly tied, but far ahead of the rest of the pack. Romney finished first at 27.62% to Huckabee's 27.10% second, with NYC golden child Rudy Giuliani finishing eighth at 1.85% among these representative of the voting block credited as the deciding factor in keeping the White House Republican in 2004.
  • Mike Huckabee's stellar speech at the Values Voter Summit results in a stunning victory in the on-site polling. Huckabee received 51.26% to Romney's 10.40% second place among those who were actually there to hear the candidates speak. His speech covered not only the expected Values Voter issues of Sanctity of Life, Sanctity of Marriage, and Freedom of Religious Speech. It also covered defeating Islamofacism, fiscal discipline, national sovereignty (including border security), energy independence, and a host of other issues of interest to conservatives. YouTube videos of part1, part2, and part3 (along with various smaller segments from the speech), show thousands of hits each; indicating that the impact of this speech continues to make itself felt among an increasing audience.
  • Huckabee had another impressive showing at the Republican debate on FoxNews, Oct 21; where after talking with his focus group, Frank Lutz said “Mike Huckabee had a very good night at this debate - even without a lot of time to talk”. Huckabee also finished second in a FoxNews text-poll following the debate. Though unscientific, the poll results still indicated a significant increase regarding interest in Huckabee.
  • Glenn Beck, in his self-described process of "looking for somebody I can vote for", had an hour-long interview with Mike Huckabee, the same weekend.
Beginning about the same time, a number of articles took note of the rising interest in the possibility of a Huckabee nomination; some specifically noting the Values Voters poll results and debate performance.

One of the best published examples of what seems to now be happening comes from the October 25th endorsement of Mike Huckabee from the evangelical outpost, by Joe Carter (with Matthew Anderson and Justin Taylor):

"For several months we have admired the scrappy campaign of Gov. Huckabee but believed it would be a wasted effort to support him with our time, energy, and finances. We bought into the notion that he could never get the GOP nomination since conservative voters would not support him. And the reason we were told conservative voters would never support him is because he could not get the nomination. To quote John Piper (from a different context), 'It’s like the army being defeated because there aren’t enough troops, and the troops won’t sign up because the army’s being defeated.' We can no longer sit idly by and allow the campaign of a worthy candidate and an honorable man to flounder for lack of support. ... Our army may go down in defeat, but it won't be because we refused to enlist in this worthy cause."

There is much more to that endorsement, and I highly recommend it.

Since Oct-25, Mike Huckabee has been rated in double digits in the Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking Poll, and has spent 4 of those 6 days ahead of Mitt Romney. His schedule for the next week looks like a who's-who of TV/Cable News, including (in chronological order) "Good Morning America", "Situation Room" with Wolf Blitzer, Neil Cavuto, Bill O'Reilly (who apparently promised Dick Morris a steak dinner if Huckabee ever broke 10% in the polls), "Hannity and Colmes", Charlie Rose, and others.

To cap it all off; Cash (the lack of which past commentators have gleefully bemoaned) seems to finally be rolling into the Huckabee campaign coffers. The increase in people saying "I Like Mike" with their wallets has accelerated too such a degree since mid-October; that Huckabee's online fundraising is poised* to end October having garnered more contributions during that one month than in all of Q3!

Getting over a Million Dollars in one month still won't give Mike the biggest bank in the race. But with the results he's been getting from his previously small budget campaign; this is sure to be giving people in the other campaigns on both sides some sleepless nights.

Mike Huckabee is by no means a sure thing. There are other candidates that some (including social liberals, open borders globalists, and the peace at any cost crowd) might find more attractive. My advise is to support the candidate who both proclaims and has a history of fighting for the values in which you believe. If that candidate is Mike Huckabee, you can no longer use the excuse that "he can't win"; because without question - Mike Huckabee has crossed the Delaware!

*[Update: as of Wednesday morning, Oct 31; "is poised to" can be changed to "will". Not only has this been done in one month, but the vast majority has been raised within the last week of the month!]