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)
Thursday, November 29, 2007
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.
THAT'S JUST CRAZY!!!
{{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.}
{{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.
THAT'S JUST CRAZY!!!
{{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 www.MikeHuckabee.com
*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.
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 www.MikeHuckabee.com
*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.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
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.
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 RushLimbaugh.com.
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!
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 RushLimbaugh.com.
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 www.MikeHuckabee.com. 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")
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 www.MikeHuckabee.com. 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 townhall.com 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.
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 www.MikeHuckabee.com, 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?!?
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 www.mikehuckabee.com 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."
"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!
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):
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.]
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):
- The wisdom to see the true foundational question behind the question ["What you're really asking is if I believe in God"]
- 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..."]
- 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'"]
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.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)