Read My Lips; "New World Order"

Many contend it was "Read my lips; no new taxes" that cost George HW Bush critical support and handed the Oval Office over to Bill Clinton, the second president in American history to be impeached. I think it had as much, and possibly more, to do with his use of the phrase; "new world order".

Whatever was right with George Herbert Walker Bush, his fatal flaw of being a globalist became more apparent with time. Whatever was wrong with Ross Perot (and there was plenty), he seemed to be the lone voice of those who still believed in the sovereignty of the United States of America.

I believe it was the uneasy feeling of recognizing Bush 41 as a globalist that sent enough otherwise republican voters to Perot, and resulted in the election of Bill "Slick Willy" Clinton; unfortunately another globalist.

If we had any doubts about where George W Bush stands regarding American sovereignty, his support for open borders and supposed "free trade" agreements that give away the farm to other countries (rather than being fair for both sides) make it plain that Bush 43, like Clinton before him and Bush 41 before him, is a globalist.

Now we're told that the next president will be either Hilary Rodham Clinton (a globalist), Barack Hussein Obama (another globalist), or John "Z-visa" McCain (again a raging unquestionable globalist). What's amazing about McCain is that he seems to want a well-equipped military that smiles and waves as it watches our country both invaded and given away, as long as the people taking over our country aren't carrying guns. And what else is the agenda behind the Man-Made Global Warming movement that McCain supports but globalism? (that and another excuse for higher taxes)

I'm not saying we need a protectionist like Ross Perot, or an isolationist like Ron Paul; but I think at least part of what makes Ron Paul supporters so passionate is that they see the erosion of our national sovereignty that has resulted from the globalism under our last three presidents.

I am saying we need a strong defender of our national sovereignty, like Mike Huckabee. He understands the line between sovereignty and protectionism, and between free trade and globalism. He is clear about the difference between co-operating with other countries for security and the "internationalism" of turning over our security to the approval of foreign nations.

We keep hearing that "change" is the theme of this presidential election cycle. The Democrat message seems to be that "change" primarily means changing parties. I say that in one of the most important issues for our country, we've had the same old thing ever since Bush 41 replaced Ronald Reagan. From Bush 41, through Bill Clinton, to Bush 43, we've had a globalist in the White House. In that, yes we desperately need a change.

We stand at the proverbial crossroads and we have a clear choice. Will we rediscover the path of American Sovereignty to exceptional greatness? Or will we continue down the path toward globalism and repeat the "national malaise" of the Carter years?

The President of the United States should be more than someone who wants to keep us physically safe, or who puts a priority on what other countries think of us. Whether or not our next president is Mike Huckabee, we absolutely must make sure it is someone committed to the United States as a free and independent sovereign nation. To do otherwise would put our security and our freedoms at the whim of "the Global community" and make a mockery of our Constitution. Isn't protecting our nation from all threats both foreign and domestic, and upholding the Constitution of the United States what being President is really all about?

One final note: Going along with the Global-Warming crowd really is a huge threat to our sovereignty. One of the "dirty little secrets" behind the issue of securing our borders (both south and north) is the large percentage of oil we get from Mexico and Canada. If we are ever to really reclaim our national sovereignty, we absolutely must become energy independent and as quickly as possible. That means not only "alternative energy" in the future, but an immediate increase in domestic oil production, and I mean now! Readers probably won't have to think very hard to figure out which of the Presidential candidate is pushing a comprehensive plan for energy independence, rather than a "comprehensive immigration reform" Z-visa amnesty. Right again... Mike Huckabee!

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.}

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.

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.

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!

Rush Credits Huckabee with Best debate statement on Hillary

First, I want to make sure I'm quoting Rush Limbaugh correctly; unlike the Bizarro-World mis-quotes that resulted in the infamous "Harry Reid smear letter." I invite readers to check my accuracy at this link ("Rush Recaps the GOP Debate" or for Rush 24/7 members, this link)

In discussing the the GOP debate shown Oct-21 on the Fox News channel, Rush was involved in enlightening his audience about how the various candidates handled the Hillary question. As part of that, he played audio of Mike Huckabee's view on a possible Hillary Presidency:

Huckabee: "There's nothing funny about Hillary Clinton being president. Let me tell you why. If she's president, taxes go up, health care becomes the domain of the government, spending goes out of control; our military loses its morale, and I'm not sure we'll have the courage and the will and the resolve to fight the greatest threat this country's ever faced in Islamofascism. We've got an enemy that wants to kill every last one of us. We cannot be soft. We must be strong. We'll sign crazy bills like the Law of the Sea Treaty and give away our sovereignty, and that's why with all the fun we're going to have talking about it, there's nothing funny about Hillary being president."

Rush then interjected how, at an event in Philadelphia the previous Thurday, he paused in a "riff on Hillary Clinton and the Democrats" to query the audience about frustration over wanting to hear such statements from Republican presidential candidates; and how that resulted in a standing ovation. He then continued with;
"Well, now all of a sudden, we're starting to get from these candidates the kind of statements that reflect the views of people who are going to vote for them, one of them who wins the nomination. You know, rather than the policy wonk stuff. This was the best one of the night last night..."

As far as I know, Rush Limbaugh has not declared support for a particular candidate. However, it speaks very well of Huckabee to see that "the Doctor of Democracy", at least in this instance, likes Mike!
---

---

What are Crazy Politics?

"Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is a good description of insanity."
I've seen variations on this statement attributed to various sources over the years; so I'm not really sure of it's originator. Nevertheless, it seems to make sense.

"We need a change"; is a recurring theme in politics. Unfortunately, what is usually being called for is just a change of faces. When the faces change, but the standards and practices stay the same, we don't really see an improvement in the results. I believe that far too much of the time, we've had politicians standing for parties rather than principles. Furthermore, standing doesn't just involve talking points, it means consistently working for those principles.

Now most of my beliefs and goals fall within the range of what is normally called "conservative". As a result, I have most often found myself supporting Republican candidates. It was surprise to me when the Republicans lost the House and Senate in 2006, only to the degree that I was in denial. I had to admit that those Republicans we Conservatives and "Values Voters" had gone to the polls for in 2004, didn't act very conservative or work for moral values.

The days of pointing across the aisle and saying "look how liberal/immoral the Democrats are", and expecting Conservatives (especially conservative Christians) to tow the Republican line are over. We may not cross the aisle and sit with Democrats who do fit that description; but neither will we remain seated with Republicans who are just as liberal/immoral. Perhaps they will understand that a failure to take action for conservative and moral causes is just as damaging as actively working for liberal/immoral causes by understanding that giving Conservative Christians no reason to come to the polls will cause Republican losses just as quickly as if we came to the polls to vote for Democrats.

Case in point, Rudy Giuliani. I've heard it generally maintained that Mayor Giuliani is strongly conservative on defense, law, and fiscal issues; but a discussion of his positions and behavior regarding social and moral issues results in either a wink and a side-step or outright laughter. The best defense offered for the former New York City Mayor seems to lie in statements in the vein of; "He can beat Hillary"; or "Would you rather hand the White House back to the Clintons?"

A look at the positions and record of Hillary Clinton would definitely keep me from voting for her, but will not get me to vote for someone who has a far-too-similar record on the sanctity of both marriage and life itself; just to keep her out of office. I'm sure the pro-abortion, pro-immorality media knows this, when they hold up Rudy, and other pseudo-conservatives as the Republican front-runners; in between the stories on people like Rosie O'Donnell, Paris Hilton, and Lindsey Lohan; and the DNC knows it too.

If someone like former Senator Zell Miller were running for president, he is one Democrat for whom I'd vote in a heartbeat; when faced with Rudy, Romney, or McCain (still learning about Thompson) on the Republican ticket. Although Senator Miller's record is too liberal for my tastes in many areas, most of these are a matter of choice. On matters based in moral conviction, such as the sanctity of life and marriage, Senator Miller was a breath of fresh air in a party generally more concerned about the life of a tax increase than the life of an unborn child or the life of a holy union between one man and one woman.

Starting with a base of Moral and Conservative principles, (rather than prior media recognition and campaigning to the "middle" on issues) the Republican primary race would be much different. It wouldn't exactly turn on it's head, but would more likely have it's "middle" at the top, with the "top" in the middle. (I use "middle" and "top" here in reference to polling results, not issue positions) We would then be talking about Huckabee, Hunter, and Brownback at the top of the ticket, and discussing whether Romney, Thompson or one of the others might make an acceptable choice for VP.

If the GOP insists on following the same old path of prior name recognition and personal destruction, rather than principled action; then they are crazy if they think they will get a different result than they did in 2006.

The irony is that Mike Huckabee seems to be filtering toward the "top tier" despite the apparent determination of big Republican contributors and much of the media to ignore him. While he's not exactly "hard right" on all the issues, he is consistently conservative; and unquestionably firm on the moral issues. Add to that the fact the Huckabee is the husband of one wife and blameless reputation (did you get that?), and is not at all sanctimonious, but rather connects with voters in an obviously sincere and down-to-earth way; and you have the "worst nightmare" for certain candidates on both sides of the aisle.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying Mike Huckabee is the only valid choice. I am saying that conservatives and Republicans should take a look at the model that both he and his campaign provide if they don't want to be guilty of following the same losing strategy over and over again and expecting different results. In short; practicing Just Crazy Politics!