We Want a Christian President...

The Wrong Time to Fall Silent

2008-09-04T17:21:00.003-04:00

The Democrats have already held their convention; Obama has selected his VP nominee in Joe Biden. McCain has selected Sarah Palin to be his VP, and the Republicans are in the middle of their convention. And I haven't posted a thing. Of all times to disappear off the face of the earth, right?

Well, I apologize. The fact is, my schedule is so busy right now that I don't see myself playing a consistent part in blogging the rest of this election cycle. Perhaps I will find a pocket of time in which I can insert my two cents every now and then, but I can make no guarantees. For now, I commend those who have remained committed to the task.

The Need Persists

2008-08-07T11:15:00.004-04:00

Over the summer, I've been considering how my blog might evolve into a more general conservative Christian site. I've even tried to come up with a new name, thinking that "We Want a Christian President" was overly provocative and a turn-off.

But, during this past week, I've discovered through editorials written in The Washington Times, which accused evangelicals of religious bigotry against Mitt Romney (who is a Mormon), and the reaction of Huckabee supporters on Huck's Army, that there is still a great need for this site, explaining why a political candidate's faith is important, and why it is not hateful, irrational, or bigoted to hold to that position.

Some at Huck's Army believe that I am harming the effort simply by making such statements. In my opinion, some of them just haven't really chewed over what I'm saying (or simply disagree). Others are allowing the fear of being mischaracterized dictate what they will say. And some may even be placing political expediency and a misguided notion of ecumenism above the truth.

Of course, I think there is a certain level of discretion one should maintain; we shouldn't give our enemies fodder easy to twist and turn against us; and we should always speak the truth in love. But we should speak the truth.

So, WWCP will continue as WWCP for the foreseeable future. If I need a more general site to post my material on, I may create a new blog or return to Kingdom Advancing.

For now, I will post some of my recent comments from Huck's Army (an extra note can be found at the bottom of this post):

Other's comment: Religion has no place in politics and we must separate it and stick to the issues and character of the candidates. Romney's religion, whether it is Christian, Mormon, one and the same, should never come into play here. It should only be about the reasons Romney is not "ready to be commander in chief...or 2nd in command...."

My response: Does character not have some connection to a person's relationship with God? Obviously, we can't know that any public figure has a close relationship with God, but we can know that those who openly profess a false theology do not. This is not to say that a non-Christian can't have the outward expressions of good character. But I'd prefer for his/her character to flow from God.

Do one's positions on the issues not have some connection to their relationship with God? A true Christian should be guided by the Word and Spirit, and strengthened by them.

Do one's beliefs not have some connection with their readiness to lead? The case could be made that some religious beliefs are so illogical that one who holds to them cannot possess the judgment to lead.

Other's comment: Please don't disect the Mormon religion or any other religion on this website. The Rombots are just waiting to catch somebody who is doing that so they can put it all over the web. The Washington Times has hurt us enough for even implying that evangelicals are against Romney because he is a Mormon. What do you think John McCain and his campaign are thinking about all of this? Don't you think they might consider Mike a risk because of people who claim we are bigots? Commenting on somebody's religious beliefs is just a bad idea.It's not that you are doing anything wrong, just do it in your own mind..don't post it. Don't give anybody ammunition that might hurt Mike. Just about all of the people on this website don't like Romney because of his character and he cannot be trusted. Those are big reasons!

My response: I'm not dying to get into a critique of Mormonism. But when people on a conservative, greatly Christian site like this say that "religion should be kept out of politics," I have to speak up. When writers begin a tirade on evangelicals by saying that "Mormons are Christians, anyway," [as the opiner in The Washington Times did] I can't let that slide... The Bible tells us to "be of good repute," so that our revilers will be "put to shame." It never says, "For the sake of political expediency, avoid speaking the truth." Of course, there is a level of discretion. But I don't think we should hide what we believe.

Other's Comment: I agree with what many of you have already stated -- having a theological discussion is not helpful at this time. It would only feed into their belief that we are predjudice against Romney for his religion -- which we are not. It would be different if they were open to hearing different doctrine, and if it were one on one privately, but they are not open and it is public. In all respect, please reconsider no longer responding to this website:

II Timothy 2:23-26 NKJV "But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife. And the servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will."

Please dont flank me ... just sharing the concern of my heart.

My response: I understand what you're saying, but I still don't get the logic behind "don't stand up for truth, because our enemies might twist the truth and use it against us." That's just not a good enough reason to be silent on an issue.

What I'm concerned about is the possibility that some well-meaning Christians will dust topics like these under the rug because they're inconvenient, because they don't want to be branded bigots, because they don't want to hurt the movement, because they don't want to think critically about this issue. I'm concerned that there may be Christians who would prefer to know nothing about Mormonism except that "Mormons are good people," so that they can have some kind of plausible deniability with which they can say, "I could care less about a politician's religion."

That's unacceptable for the church to so cavalierly dismiss a person's relationship with God--a person who they are using their God-given freedom and ability to put into a position of great power.

--------------

Allow me to add a few final thoughts: I am not advocating, and have never advocated, giving a candidate a leg up simply because he claims to be a Christian. Read the intro to my blog: "Not just in word, but in deed...Not just in deed, but in practice." My position has always been that a Christian candidate's faith should be reflected in his political positions, behavior, and speech. One also must look at a candidate's talents and experience. God does not gift all Christians with the wherewithal to run civil governments, and we should carefully consider whether a Christian candidate is qualified.

I've also held that there may come a time when a non-Christian candidate would be a better alternative than the professing Christian. But it would be very difficult for me to vote for either in that scenario, and, with John McCain's less-than-stellar appearance on issues of faith (See my post: Sitting in the Aisle?), I really hope he picks a strong VP.

POLL: Charge of the Other Side of Netroots

2008-07-25T15:22:00.002-04:00

Every once in a while, you get so immersed in your conservative circles, like Huck's Army, the F3 Coalition, the Huckabee Alliance, and the like that you forget that there's another side to the "netroots" coin. Obviously, I never really get a chance to forget about it, because I hear about MoveOn.org all the time. But I rarely see it personally.

Well, I got to see just a little bit of it in action recently with my latest poll. Someone commented on a popular liberal blog about my poll, and voila!

I asked: Which of the following best summarizes your reaction to the recent events relating to marriage in California?

The response:

A incredibly lopsided 242 (89%) said that "California's finally gotten it right. Now for the rest of the country."

The second-place group, consisting of 24 (8%), said that it "Just goes to show how much we need a federal marriage amendment."

A couple people each said that it "Just goes to show had bad activist courts can be" and that it's "Just a blip on the screen; stick with states' rights," neither attaining one percent of the vote.

With one vote, "Just goes to show how far-left California is" came in last.

You all may be interested in what my reaction was. Well, as the administrator of the poll, I have the luxury of not limiting myself to one answer. Needless to say, I do not agree with the 89% majority. I also don't think that it's proof of how liberal Californians are, although I think many of them are very liberal. This was a court decision, overriding the will of the people, who had already chosen to protect marriage and who will have an opportunity to do it again this November with a state constitutional amendment on the ballot.

Although I understand the point of view which urges us to stick to states' rights, I, as a proponent of a federal marriage amendment, do not concur, and I fear that this may be more than a blip on the screen in the long run if strong action is not taken.

I'm split somewhat evenly between seeing the need for a marriage amendment and recognizing the extent and effect of activist courts. Of course, the former is remedial action which one can take, whereas the latter is more just a realization.

Please vote in the next poll!

POLL: Credentials, Of Course!

2008-07-25T15:12:00.003-04:00

Okay, time to get some of these old polls out of the way, and get a new one up and running.

First, I asked: In your opinion, what is the primary factor which McCain should take into account when selecting a running mate?

Overwhelmingly, you responded that Conservative Credentials were of the utmost importance. 37 (77%) of you chose that option.

Executive Experience came in a distant second with 7 (14%) votes. Yet, that was a solid second, for Youth/Freshness came in third with only 3 (6%) votes. State/Region captured a single (2%) vote. Neither Race/Ethnicity nor Gender garnered a solitary vote.

Decadence, Morality, and Homosexuality

2008-07-23T15:00:00.005-04:00

Also posted here and here.

Someone really has to start keeping me from reading my local newspaper's main section. I'm fine as long as I restrict myself to the sports section, the comics, and the features. But when I delve into the opinion columns and the readers' letters, I likely won't come out without being fired up.

Most of the time, I write a response in my head, and that is enough to satisfy me. But, today, I decided to actually write a rebuttal. I'll post it here and a couple of other places, then perhaps submit it to my newspaper.

First, the original letter:

...America has become decadent.
It has become decadent when the personal, private and harmless activities of two consenting adults are grounds for immorality.
It has become decadent when one faith out of millions blelives that it has a monopoly on whom we may love.
It has become decadent when citizens believe their faith should override all others, ignoring the freedom of thought upon which this country was built.
And it has become decadent when fools cannot follow the teachings of their own religion: "Judge not, lest ye be judged" -- Matthew 7:1.

~Mr. C. Payton

Did that get you riled up? Here's my response:

~~
I suppose that the scathing "decadent" contributor on July 22 believes that his morality (if you can even call it that) should rule the day, for all legislation comes from a foundation of morality. He seems to feel very strongly on the issue of right and wrong, yet he gives no basis for his determinations. Is he depending on the "divine" wisdom or omniscience of his own mind? If so, that's "just his opinion or preference, just truth for him," as a relativist might say, and he might as well keep it to himself. Otherwise, he is the one exhibiting arrogance when he dares to pound the gavel on an issue with the arm of his own conjecture.

He certainly is not consulting the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," as the Founders did, for he skewers reliance on God and turns a blind eye to the obvious, common-sense, self-evident realization of that which is natural and that which is not. Our ancestors would go so far as to call homosexuality a "crime against nature."

We've reached an astounding level of illogic in this country when it is considered decadence to hold yourself and society to a standard of decent behavior, while following your own selfish passions no matter where they lead is deemed what? Virtue?

I fail to see where Christians are suppressing freedom of thought. I do see gay activists trying to restrict freedom of speech, the press, religion, and conscience through overreaching "hate speech" legislation, as well as employee "non-discrimination" measures. Not to mention how they endeavor to revolutionize the definition of marriage and family for everyone.

There's an erroneous notion prevalent today that to be a tolerant person means to be a political pushover for your opponents. Now, while this is a very advantageous concept for those opposing you, it is utterly ridiculous, and I will not yield to it.

Matthew 7:1 is a condemnation of hypocrisy and a caution to pride in oneself, not a prohibition on biblical discretion. Just read the following verses to see what I mean. We are to be careful when judging others, but it is irrational to claim that we aren't even allowed to judge conduct, especially when the Bible is so clear on a specific matter. Or else, there's no point to a law system and much of the Bible--Old Testament and New--is negated.
~~

Here are two things which I would like to point out but chose not to include in the letter, for the sake of its length and flow:

1.) The original writer makes the faulty assumption that something is not immoral if it is "personal, private, and harmless." First of all, he's taking the liberty to define morality for himself, as I alluded in my response. The "private and harmless" concept, from the biblical commandment to "love your neighbor as yourself," may form the basis for much of our civil justice system, but it does not decide what morality is and is not.

2.) He also makes the mistake of assuming that the sanctioning of homosexuality by our government would not have far-reaching effects on our society.

A Couple Updates on Marriage

2008-07-18T11:55:00.004-04:00

Just wanted to update you all on a couple of marriage issues:

1.) The number of co-sponsors of the marriage amendment resolutions in the House and Senate continues to creep upwards...very, very slowly. In the House, new representatives lent their signatures to the measure for the first time in almost three weeks, bringing the total to 89. In the Senate, the number jumped from 11 to 16, but has been static for the past few days.

By the way, does anyone else think it is a shame that the House and Senate is split nearly down the middle between Republicans and Democrats, and yet the co-sponsors of these respective bills don't reach even close to 50% of the members of these two houses? Not to mention the Democrats who have joined in on this fight, pushing the Republican percentage even lower. It just serves as a reminder, all Republicans are not made in the same mold.

The Republican Leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, responded to two of my e-mails by saying that he supported and co-sponsored a similar bill in 2006, and will support this one when the "full Senate has a chance to vote on it." Perhaps the Senator should consider that he should, as the Minority Leader, lead on this issue, not follow or merely be a "yea" in the Senate rabble. Maybe I should contact him again and convey those sentiments.

There's no telling how many other congressmen and senators feel the same way: they plan to sit out until (and if) it comes to a vote; then they will cast their vote in favor of marriage, family, and morality.

That's why it's pivotal that the citizenry involve themselves. Perhaps, if a representative is contacted by enough of his constituents, he'll be energized and emboldened to stop sitting on his hands, and to start using them to co-sponsor the federal marriage amendment. Go to Traditional Wedlock to find helpful links.

2.) Good news! Homosexual "marriage" activists in California failed in an attempted lawsuit to get California's marriage amendment off the ballot. Now, perhaps the Democratic process can play itself out.

A Journey Worth Taking on a Summer Afternoon

2008-07-14T11:45:00.005-04:00

Journey to the Center of the Earth -- 3D

Starring: Brendan Fraser, Josh Hutcherson

Plot Synopsis: A disrespected scientist and his teenage nephew take a trek to Iceland to investigate a previously unknown seismic sensor, which could lead to a great discovery or even information about the scientist's brother's (and nephew's dad's) mysterious disappearance. Hiring a mountain guide to lead them, they stumble onto (or should I say into) more than anyone could have expected (unless, of course, you've seen the movie's trailers or commercials).

Objectionable Material: Fortunately, there's not much to list under this heading. At one point, the young nephew uses a recently discovered scientific term as a euphemism of the s-word. And some may consider the female mountain guide's apparel to be less than appropriate at times, but that's about it. The main character does make a reference to "millions of years" when discussing a bird that had supposedly been extinct for that long. Of course, this is a science fiction movie, so why not allude to the most popular science fiction of all?

Analysis: The best part about this movie may be the fact that it doesn't take itself too seriously. In the parts that it does, I found myself pulling out of the story mentally, thinking "this is corny." Specifically, I'm referring to any part in which Trevor (Brendan Fraser) and Hannah--the mountain guide--tried to converse in an overly passionate, intense way. The movie is much more in its element when the expeditioners are falling endlessly and screaming their lungs out, only to momentarily fall silent. After a few seconds, Trevor yells, "We're still falling!!!" Or, while in the act of running from a T-Rex, Shawn (Josh Hutcherson) asks Trevor, "Haven't you ever seen a dinosaur before?" To which Trevor replies, "Not with skin on it!" The sarcasm and humor is at its best in situations where you'd never expect someone to be sarcastic or funny. The other area in which the movie finds its niche is in intense moments broken by humor or setting up a humorous conclusion to the scene.

If you're going to see this movie, you have to see it in 3D, as long as that doesn't make you nauseous. Without the third dimension, I think that some moments in the film would seem run-of-the-mill or even pointless and time-wasting (in terms of pacing). With the third dimension, something as ordinary as blowing on a dandelion (granted, a gigantic dandelion), becomes an almost magical experience. A yo-yo becomes a thrill-machine. And the whole movie, including the parts without explicitly 3D material, feels unusual.

This movie isn't going to make it into my Top 10, Top 20, or perhaps even Top 50 list (if I ever took the time to make that long of a list). But if you want to see a quality, entertaining movie that doesn't require ear-muffs, blindfolds, or stomach pumps, Journey to the Center of the Earth--3D is a solid choice.

Happy Independence Day!!!

2008-07-04T12:10:00.002-04:00

As so happens with my knack for great timing and preparation, I have prepared nothing eloquent to post about my country on this, its birthday. But I still wanted to express my adoration for my country, in spite of its faults, because of its merits. Today, I encourage you to ponder the sacrifice of those who paid the price for the freedom which we now enjoy, in some form similar to the way our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ paid our debt so that we could be free, set so by the truth.

Enjoy your freedom today, and if you see a military serviceman or woman, go ahead and thank him/her. While you're at it, thank God for the grace He's shed on this country, and pray for all the more. Not that we deserve it. Not that we expect it. But that we so desperately need it.

Happy 4th!!!!

What's On Your Radio?

2008-07-02T12:14:00.006-04:00

I rarely post things just for fun, encouragement, and fellowship, and I think that's a problem. I also don't provide you with good opportunities to interact, besides the chance for some of you to express your disdain for me and some of you to take up arms by my side.

So, today, I want to tell you about a few of my favorite songs at present. Here goes:

Song of Hope
By: Robbie Seay Band

Stay Strong
By: Newsboys

You Are Everything
By: Matthew West

Let It Fade
By: Jeremy Camp

We Need Each Other
By: Sanctus Real

Washed by the Water
By: Needtobreathe

That's a good playlist to invigorate and inspire you to go out as a member of the body of Christ, to get up and dust yourself off, to come out stronger from your trials, to persevere, to leave your old life behind.

Tell me what you're listening to these days!!!!

p.s. To hear thirty-second snippets of these songs and/or to have the opportunity to download them for 94 cents a piece (plus state sales tax), you can visit Walmart Music Downloads.

86 in the House; 9 in the Senate

2008-06-28T17:05:00.003-04:00

The number of cosponsors for H.J.RES. 89, calling for a federal marriage amendment, continues to creep upwards. Marilyn Musgrave from Colorado became a cosponsor on Thursday, bringing the total to 86.

In closely related news, Senator Wicker of Mississippi has introduced a similar bill in the Senate. It currently has 9 cosponsors.

For action instructions, please visit Traditional Wedlock.org.

In WWCP news, I've been considering how I might transition this blog from an Election '08 effort to a more general Christian conservative site. My main dilemma is that my URL, "http://christianpresident," makes a simple name change problematic, while changing the URL or creating a whole new blog would cause other issues (such as informing all those who have linked or visited here). Anyways, just wanted to let you know that I've been pondering over such measures.

Clearing the Air

2008-06-23T17:40:00.005-04:00

First of all, let me say that it is flattering that, as one commenter on another site (self-described as that of a "godless liberal") put it, my latest poll required "immediate attention." I am not sure why he (and those who followed his lead) felt it was so important, but I found it interesting nonetheless.

Secondly, on the same site, someone mentioned that the lack of comments on the last post meant that I had rejected all of them, due to my guidelines at the conclusion of my last post. Well, to be honest, only two people tried to get comments through, and I posted both of theirs. Honestly, folks, my blog is not all that popular when a post isn't being voted up on Real Clear Politics.

Thirdly, another commenter mentioned that her stand for "individual rights" must be "intellectually dull" to me. No, not at all. I didn't intend to insult anyone's sensibilities who opposes my view. But this is exactly the type of groundless reframing of the debate that I was expressing my distaste for. So, since I'm for traditional marriage, I'm obviously a hateful bigot, and she's obviously a great beacon for freedom and rights. That's not self-evident truth; that's political propaganda.

It's funny; on her blog, she pointed out that she decided not to comment because of the end of my last post. Apparently, she couldn't think of a worthwhile comment that didn't include calling me a bigot or a hater.

She goes on to insinuate that my vision of a "God-fearing democracy" would leave people of all other faiths and beliefs "without representation." What I want to know is, what doesn't she understand about the word democracy? What doesn't she understand about, "All men are created equal, and endowed by their CREATOR with certain inalienable rights." But I digress...

In conclusion, she takes a shot at my analysis of Barack Obama's elitist comments about people "clinging" to guns and religion. Allow me to apologize, I did not mean to suggest that all secular humanists are for big government. But I'm not going to retract the point I made in my post.

Finally, I'd like to point out once again that I think that, if anyone takes a comprehensive and coolheaded approach to what I'm saying on this site, they will find that I have thoughtfully and sincerely considered my positions, and they are not a result of bigotry or hatred.

Federal Marriage Amendment 2008

2008-06-17T15:30:00.000-04:00

The push for a federal marriage amendment has begun once again. Since May 22, when H.J.RES. 89 (titled "Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage") was introduced, 66 U.S. Representatives have co-sponsored it.

To bring it to a vote, we will likely need more than that.

A blog has been set up by a member of the F3 Coalition specifically to address this issue. There, you can find information about the bill, who has signed it, links to articles explaining why we need a Federal Marriage Amendment, and other resources.

Visit it here: 2008 Federal Marriage Amendment.

If you've been a reader of my blog, you know how important this issue is to me. At some point in the future, I'd like to explain my position further. For now, all I will say is what you can you do:

1.) Contact your representative: If your representative has already co-sponsored the bill, thank him/her for doing so. If your representative has not co-sponsored the bill as of yet, contact him/her and urge him/her to do so. (Some of the resources on the FMA blog will help you make your case.)

2.) Get others to contact their representatives: You are one voice to a representative. But you can have the impact of numerous voices, if you can get others to contact their representatives.

3.) Blog about it: The mainstream media will probably ignore this for the most part, either because they want it to die or because they simply care more about other news stories--like the presidential election. Grassroots efforts are essential for this bill to gain steam.

4.) Pray: Is an explanation really needed here?

The chances of getting the required 2/3 majority are probably pretty slim. Last time around, in 2006, pro-family advocates came up 47 short of the necessary tally. However, we must try, try again, using the current demonstration in California of our failure as motivation to push this through with urgency.

Please note: No presumptuous comments accusing me of religious bigotry and hatred will be posted. Those are just so boring and intellectually dull.

"Is There a Door That Doesn't Lead to Prison?"

2008-06-10T18:50:00.001-04:00

I apologize for the lack of posting in the past, oh, month. It is the result of a substantial increase in busyness (not to mention nice weather), as well as the need for rejuvenation and reclamation of perspective.

Anyways, we have our two main parties' presumptive nominees, and all I can say is, "What a shame!" Honestly, I wouldn't say that this election is like being between a rock and a hard place, since John McCain's proverbial "hardness" is barely comparable to that of Barack Obama's. In reality, the choice before us is more akin to deciding between eating wood or eating poisoned bread (eloquent, likable, attractive poisoned bread, mind you).

That is, unless there is a third option. I'm reminded of the character Ben Gates--played by Nicolas Cage--in the movie National Treasure. While in federal custody, Gates is told by an FBI agent that there are two doors he can walk through, both of which lead to prison, differentiated only by Gates' level of cooperation and ensuing state of his conscience. Gates asks, "Is there a door that doesn't lead to prison?"

Right now, I'm asking myself, Is there a door that doesn't lead to John McCain or Barack Obama being President?

Unfortunately, at this point in time, I can't say, like Ben Gates does later in the movie, "I've found door number three, and I'm taking it." But there's still time, and who knows what could happen? (I know this answer: God.)

My main problem with voting third party is the nearly inevitable futility of such an endeavor, exemplified by one Libertarian candidate who has a 12-year plan to win the White House in 2020!!! Already it seems that most Republicans have reconciled themselves to John McCain. I don't blame them too much for their short memories; I blame Barack Obama. He's just that liberal, and to substitute Obama's name for the common sentiment about Hillary Clinton, McCain can't unify the Republican party nearly as well as Barack Obama can.

If I wish to register my dissent with McCain and the GOP, I will vote third-party or write in a candidate's name. That will likely only happen if McCain slaps me in the face with his VP pick. Keep these names in mind: Giulani, Liebermann, Romney. If he goes in any of those directions, you'll know the direction in which I'll be gravitating. (I'm not making any promises or predictions, just posting probabilities.)

Just in case anyone is wondering, I absolutely will not be voting for Obama in order to kick the Republicans out of office and back into true conservatism. As tempting as that sounds, I couldn't bring myself to vote for a radically anti-life, pro-homosexual, anti-gun, wealth redistributing liberal like Obama, even if I do vote for a third-party candidate (which some might consider "half a vote for Obama.")

In conclusion, I'd like to say once again that we must not forget about the congressional and senatorial battles this fall. For, regardless of who wins the presidency, the agenda of the next four years will largely be determined by who is in control of Congress.

Republican Hoosiers and Tar Heels Echo Pennsylvanians' Sentiments

2008-05-08T16:25:00.002-04:00

Originally posted here and here.

Digg this.

Even with many of the pundits auditioning for the role of the “Fat Lady” and Hillary Clinton riling up her supporters by promising to continue the fight after her crushing defeat in North Carolina and narrow victory in Indiana, the loudest clangor in John McCain’s ears is probably the echo reverberating from Pennsylvania throughout Indiana and North Carolina.

Despite being the presumptive nominee for over two months now, the Arizona Senator failed to rack up even three quarters of the vote in North Carolina after having experienced the same letdown in Pennsylvania on April 22. McCain barely scraped up three quarters of the vote in Indiana.

In Indiana, John McCain collected 77% of the vote in form of over 319,000 votes tallied. Mike Huckabee, who suspended his bid for the nomination on March 4, came in second with over 41,000 (10%), while Ron Paul garnered upwards of 31,000 (8%) and Mitt Romney, who’s been out of the race for a month longer than Huckabee, managed 19,000 plus (5%).

In North Carolina, 381,000 and a handful more (74%) pulled the lever for McCain, while over 62,000 (12%) did so for Huckabee and another some 37,000 (7%) for Paul. More than 20,000 (4%) recorded that they had no preference. Romney wasn’t on the ballot, so many of those “no preference” votes are probably his, like those on the Democratic side were for Barack Obama and John Edwards in Michigan, where Hillary Clinton and the ever-competitive Dennis Kucinich were the only names on the ballot.

The point here is this: McCain has spent two months with almost no competition on the Republican side. He’s got less than six months left before the general election, and there are hundreds of thousands of voters who, for one reason or the other, consider it appropriate and necessary to cast their vote for a Republican not named McCain.

Of course, this doesn’t even account for those voters who may be “biting the bullet” and voting for McCain in the primaries for the sake of party unity, yet aren’t too excited about it and don’t plan to fight for him.

McCain has a little time and one monumental decision which will determine whether he can bring all these wandering sheep back into the fold. That momentous choice, of course, is that of his running mate. The question is this: Will any conservative do? Or does it need to be Mike Huckabee? Or does it need to be anyone but the former presidential candidates? Or are these voters gone no matter what?

I don't have the answer to those questions. But it should be noted that few politicians have as strong and as well-known of reputations on issues such as life, marriage, the Second Amendment, and the Fair Tax as Huckabee has, not to mention his appeal to middle-class voters and Christian conservatives.

Tell me what you think.

The Key to the Keystone State in November?

2008-04-25T17:15:00.001-04:00

For the last month and a half, Governor Mike Huckabee spent no time with his boots on the ground in Pennsylvania. In fact, I don’t think he campaigned there period. His voice was not heard on radio ads. His visage was not seen in TV spots. The Hucka-bus did not traverse the turnpike. Calls were not made to prospective voters on his behalf. Any grassroots efforts were independent, few, and far between. No debates were held to match the Democrats.

Anyone up on their politics knows that the reason for this inactivity is the fact that Huckabee dropped out of the race after "Super Tuesday 2" on March 4th, when it became unmistakably clear that he would not prevent John McCain from reaching the required 1191 delegates. According to his word, Huckabee threw his support behind the Arizona Senator.

Yet, over 91,000 residents of the Keystone State still pulled the lever, if you will, for the former Arkansas governor yesterday. While the mainstream media—and, by the trickledown effect, the rest of us—are enamored by the fracas on the Democratic side, this is a stat that will, in all likelihood, go largely unnoticed. But it should not.

Some may say that this was merely a collection of protest votes. If that is the case, it’s still a big deal. Combined with Ron Paul’s votes, over a quarter of the voters on the Republican side said “no”—or at least “not yet”—to McCain. This is a stern warning to McCain: He does not have the conservative base locked up; he should not get too cute with his VP pick.

But what if the eleven percent Huckabee garnered is more than a display in Republican “civil disobedience”? After all, Ron Paul reportedly ran radio ads in Pennsylvania, and his supporters are still battling hard with their “Operation Chaos.” Paul actually received almost 128,000 votes, or 16 percent. Certainly, if people wanted to simply register their disdain for McCain, they’d either write in their favorite candidate or vote for a candidate still in the race (albeit feebly), who hasn't endorsed McCain, wouldn’t they? (Unless, of course, there’s that much antipathy towards Ron Paul and his non-interventionism.)

Perhaps the people of Pennsylvania were sending a clear message: We like Huckabee. The Keystone State is critical in November, and McCain’s not going to pick Paul (Would Paul even accept the invitation?). So, obviously, that leads us to Huckabee.

Huckabee is the kind of fella who can connect with those “bitter,” “frustrated,” “clingy” small-town Pennsylvanians whom Barack Obama apparently has no qualms about insulting. For those who "cling to religion," Huckabee is very outspoken and articulate about his faith. He’s a full-blown supporter of the Second Amendment, for those who “cling to guns.” He rejects gay marriage and amnesty, for those with “antipathy” towards those different from them. He even supports a policy of fair trade, as opposed to our broken free trade system, for those who have “anti-trade sentiment.”

Huckabee knows how to reach out to the little guy. He is one himself! People don’t see a lifelong politician, a business mogul, or a big-city elitist when they look at him, because that’s not who he is. Who is he? The type of guy who could help McCain in Pennsylvania this November.

Now, I don’t mean to start a big brouhaha of all the reasons why Huckabee would be a terrible choice. I’ve heard them. I’ve also heard legitimate arguments as to why a Huckabee supporter shouldn’t want McCain to select him. But two points of this post are clear: McCain has a lot of work to do, and he could use someone like Huckabee to help. Pennsylvanians proved that.

Overlooked Implications of Obama's "Bitter" Comments

2008-04-22T14:15:00.002-04:00

More than enough pundits and writers with larger audiences than mine have already pointed out that Barack Obama’s “bitter” comments about small-town Pennsylvanians seem tinged with elitism, incomprehension of sincerely religious people, and the idea that something must be “wrong” with those people who refuse to support liberal candidates. But, although those three promulgations are important, I feel that there are other insinuations in his comments that may be the most egregious of all.

Obama later clarified the statements he made at a private San Francisco fundraiser, saying that when politicians don’t do small-town citizens any economic favors, the latter turn to “what they can count on.” Since they haven’t been able to count on the government to handle the economy well recently, they turn to what’s left: their faith. The inference here is that, if Democrats can just use the government to fulfill people’s desires, belief in God will become unnecessary—or, at least, that festering fervent faith in Him, which dictates the way one votes, will.

This sounds like something straight out of a secular humanist strategy book: the deification of government. When government cares for all our needs like a loving, “heavenly” father (or mother—let’s be politically correct), God can be relegated to a small, comfortable, controllable "box."

But another intimation underlies Obama’s words. His statements suggest that money drives the most fundamental aspects of our lives. After all, if the government’s bumbling with the economy is what causes us to “cling” to God (or “religion,” as he puts it), then prosperity would naturally trigger a drift away from God, or at least cause us to relax our grip, right? Now, that right there is a biblical concept. Of course, prosperity spawns temptations and lures us into trusting in ourselves and our wealth rather than God; material things can make us lose perspective, and they can grow into our god. On the other hand, we cry out to the Lord in trials and tribulations, and in such situations we often come to the realization of that which is most important. Somehow, though, I just don’t think that’s the point Obama was trying to make.

His reference to guns, hinting at his anti-gun sentiments, carries similar connotations (obviously, as it came in the same sentence). Never mind the foundational principles of self-defense and constitutional rights. According to Obama’s rationale, you have to pry the firearms out of gunners’ cold dead hands—not because they feel so passionately about the right to keep and bear arms—but because they’ve died from economic hardship.

Obama’s policy seems quite straightforward. Pad their wallets, and maybe they won’t notice if you empty their holsters.

Many secularists and anti-gun activists would like a world where faith and firearms are accents, not cornerstones, of our lives. Although I can’t nail down Obama’s position officially on the faith issue, he does seem to be in the same ballpark, which seems odd, considering that he openly calls himself a Christian. I’m not going to presume to know exactly what’s in the deep recesses of his heart, but we must not forget Obama’s political positions on abortion and homosexuality, along with other issues important to Christians. The more people who “cling” to their faith—specifically, Bible-believing, Christ-centered, all-encompassing faith—the worse it is for Obama’s political ambitions. Like an atheist says in Ben Stein’s new documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, religion will ideally become something that people “do on the weekends” for fun as a social event—something that doesn’t really affect the rest of their lives. Obama’s translation? Something that doesn’t really affect their votes.

VP POLL: Huckabee's Main Man,but by a Plurality

2008-04-16T20:25:00.004-04:00

As always, thanks to everyone--all 206 of you--who participated in the latest poll.

Not ignoring the small, unscientific sample size which this site provides, the poll seems to suggest fervent support for Governors Huckabee and Romney, while a plethora of candidates have solid support.

Here's the rundown:

1. Fmr. Gov. Mike Huckabee (R, Arkansas): 73 (35%)

2. Fmr. Gov. Mitt Romney (R, Massachusetts): 51 (24%)

3. Secretary of State Condileeza Rice: 24 (11%)

4. Other: 16 (7%)

5. Sen. Joe Liebermann (D, Connecticut): 14 (6%)

6. Gov. Sarah Palin (R, Alaska): 9 (4%)

7. Gov. Haley Barbour (R, Mississippi): 8 (3%)

8. Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R, Minnesota): 7 (3%)

9. Gov. Charlie Crist (R, Florida): 4 (1%)

Note: I should point out that I did unintentionally leave out some very viable candidates, such as Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, among others. Fortunately, the "Other" option was provided for supporters of those candidates.

Please vote in the next poll, once I get it up and running.

Sitting in the Aisle?

2008-04-03T18:50:00.008-04:00

Right now, I’m imagining a church sanctuary, divided right down the middle by a solitary aisle. On the left side sit all the churchgoers who may read the Bible, and even believe the parts that they like--in other words, nominal, moderate, and liberal Christians. On the right side sit all the churchgoers who believe that the Bible is God’s Word and not something to be twisted, taken out of context, or brushed aside--a.k.a., conservative evangelicals.

In my imaginary edifice, which happens to resemble the ecclesiastical incarnation of Congress, I’m trying to figure out, “What side would John McCain sit on?”

I’m starting to think that he would sit in the aisle. On the one hand, he wants the fellowship and support of the "right side" of this church. He desires that identity. But, deep down in his heart, he seems to belong right in the middle, or even on the left side.

I believe this is the case for a few reasons:

First, he called Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson “agents of intolerance.” Now, there are many ways that you could describe these two Christian leaders, including “insensitive” or “lacking discretion” for their post-9/11 sentiments. But McCain utilized terminology that is usually reserved for the “anything goes” liberal left. McCain reportedly reconciled with Falwell, but one has to wonder whether his original statements were sincere, and his latter statements were for political expediency.

Then, McCain said that he doesn’t think homosexuality is a sin, a view that goes right along with his opposition to a federal marriage amendment (although he doesn’t support gay marriage).

Moreover, WORLD Magazine, in the article “Divided We Stand,” described what happened when McCain was asked about his faith at a gathering of the CNP:

McCain launched into the story he has told often about a prison guard in North Vietnam who showed him compassion and once, in the prison yard, drew the sign of the cross in the dirt at McCain's feet, then quickly brushed it away. The story received polite applause. Later Family Research Council head Tony Perkins told WORLD, "He had a golden opportunity to talk about his faith.Instead, he talked about the faith of his guard. It was a great story, but not what we were looking for." Bill Owens, founder and president of the Coalition of African-American Pastors, was more direct: "It was a disaster. It just proves he has no clue what we're about."

McCain is pro-life but he has supported embryonic stem-cell research, causing one to question his convictions on the issue and whether he fully grasps the issue at hand. As James Dobson has said, “You can’t truly be pro-life” if you advocate the killing of babies—even those least developed as embryos. These concerns are further legitimized by the fact that he thinks rape and incest exceptions are appropriate. Apparently, he feels that one sin (rape or incest) justifies another (killing a baby). Beyond that, he would give the “benefit of the doubt” to any abortion seeker alleging rape. In other words, abortion rates might not decline all that much, while "rape rates" would rise, unless some sort of restrictions were put on claiming rape. Not to mention, he would also give the benefit of the doubt to any state which decided to keep abortion legal. He supports the overturning of Roe v. Wade (although he hasn’t always supported such a judicial move), but he does not support a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution.

On a personal level, John McCain’s infidelity may also end up being an issue with conservative Christian voters. Like it or not, McCain needs to address and fully disclose that issue. Can he admit that he sinned, failed, yielded to temptation?
He needs to say more than that he is a “believer in redemption.” He needs to say, “I really need to be redeemed.”

As of now, McCain just doesn’t seem to understand what makes conservative Christians’ clock tick, and time is running short for him to figure that out.

I honestly don’t think McCain can, with much credibility, synchronize his watch to that clock by November. In my opinion, the best way for him to get the gears turning in his favor is the selection of a true conservative Christian as a running mate, someone who can walk the walk and talk the talk, two things seemingly beyond McCain’s capacity.

And why not former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee? Does he have his political downsides? Well, yes. By little fault of his own, he may turn off the Mormon community, along with the “Mitt Romney community” in general. But the substantial and enthusiastic evangelical constituency which he represents may outweigh any negatives that he brings to the table. In any case, McCain must recognize that the evangelical voting bloc is not something to be taken for granted, and that we will not easily be fooled by a little election-year pandering.

McCain's High-Wire Act

2008-03-12T17:00:00.003-04:00

**Please comment, telling me who you think should be McCain's VP candidate and why!**

John McCain describes himself as “older than dirt with more scars than Frankenstein.” As he ambles around the stage at a campaign rally or town hall meeting, his movements look more like Ironman at the beginning of the upcoming movie’s trailer than at the end of it. So, naturally, when you think about John McCain, the term “acrobat” is probably not one of the first things that pop into your mind. Yet, McCain finds himself in the midst of the high-wire act better known as his selection of a VP candidate.

The selection of a vice president is incredibly important. If you are unfamiliar with the American political system, you may be confounded by all the hoopla over this "second fiddle." It is true that the vice president is, by definition, not even co-president. But the vice president is vital because he is the "back-up" president. Also, the vice-presidential nominee is a not-so-subleminal message to voters of which direction the presidential nominee plans to traverse.

If McCain makes the right choice, he may just maintain his balance and make it across safely, solidifying the conservative base and collecting enough other demographics to snatch victory from the jaws of the Democrats. However, if he selects the wrong candidate, he’ll plummet to the floor, with the only potential safety nets being another terrorist attack or an extreme blunder by either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

At the very least, McCain wants to maintain the status quo. He cannot afford to take any steps backward, or to be knocked off kilter.

There are so many attributes for which to account. Should he go with a woman to steal the thunder from Hillary Clinton? Should he pick someone of a darker shade to stifle the buzz around Obama? Should he opt to go young to bridge the gap between his and Obama's ages? Should he focus on teaming up with someone from outside of Washington? Should he introduce a fresh face--someone who hasn't been in the public light? Should he attempt to add to his own military experience, magnifying the inexperience of the Democratic Senator from Illinois? Should he try to reach out to more independent voters, or should he endeavor to seal the conservative base?

Conventional political wisdom would probably advise McCain to try to widen his appeal as much as possible. But McCain finds himself in a somewhat unconventional position. He doesn’t appeal to the base of his own party. Should he really use his VP pick to trek into the wilderness of independent-land?

Unfortunately, amidst the hustle and bustle of all these factors, strong social conservatives may get left in the dust. For instance, Secretary of State Condileeza Rice seems like a logical choice; she’s young, black, female, and experienced in foreign policy (though her level of success is questionable). She’s also "mildly" pro-choice. That con virtually nixes the positivism of all of her pros. But, beyond that, she is pretty much a political unknown on a bucketful of presidential issues.

Joe Liebermann, the formerly Democratic but now Independent Senator from Connecticut, would shore up McCain’s “maverick” image, but would sink his conservative one (if he even has such a visage as it is). Liebermann is essentially a pro-war liberal—Al Gore’s running mate in 2000! Not to mention, John and Joe would constitute the dynamic “older-than-dirt” duo.

Charlie Crist, the popular governor of Florida, might sew up that battleground state for the GOP, but, without even looking at Crist’s political positions, the fact that he jumped on McCain’s bandwagon so soon makes one wonder. "On the Issues" calls him a "moderate conservative." Sound familiar?

The safe choice for McCain seems clear: Mitt Romney. Albeit unsavory to McCain personally, Romney would work wonders with conservatives, preserving conservative votes, in the least. Or would he?

Disregarding the disturbing non-sexual love affair—or, more childishly, crush—which seemingly every “conservative” pundit and talk-show host has with (or on) Romney, Mitt would scare away all conservatives (and all Americans, for that matter) who pride themselves on being resistant to snake oil salesmen, and who place morality above money on their list of priorities. Romney is a full conservative in rhetoric, not in record. Even in that context, he is an incomplete conservative--one that only aces the fiscal portion of the litmus test. And when a core constituency of the Republican Party sincerely questions his religious beliefs, he simply belittles such concerns and distorts the Sixth Article of the Constitution for his own purposes.

Sure, Wall Street America may adore Romney. But, right now, McCain needs Main Street USA. McCain needs door-to-door goers, sign-wavers, material distributors, and Sunday-school campaigners--not just check-writers. Romney would probably deliver the cash, perhaps even from his own bank account, but I doubt that he'd inspire a political movement for McCain.

Somehow, someway, Romney supporters think that he would appeal to a wide segment of Americans. He’s supposedly a “fresh, Washington outsider,” but he already comes across as a slick politician. Even his own supporters have admitted that you can forgive a “red guy governing in a blue state” for his liberal record. I sincerely hope that most conservatives aren't so willing to overlook such pandering and spinelessness. Ironically, Romney's liberal history wouldn't help McCain with independents and moderate democrats, because Romney claims to be such a brawny conservative now.

Would he reel in the old "Reagan Democrats" for the GOP? Doubtfully. His way of reaching out to the working-class is putting on a dress shirt and rolling up his sleeves halfway, instead of wearing a suit. Of course, the blue-collar man has a hard time reconciling a “Michigan native”-persona with a candidate who spends $35 million dollars (or more) of his personal wealth trying to capture the presidency.

There are a lot of directions in which McCain can go with the vice presidency. Many of them are wrong. Senator McCain, choose carefully. It’s a long fall to the ground.

**I hope to start examining potential vice-presidential candidates in the near future. In the meantime, comment with your thoughts and vote in the latest poll.**

Another Petition

2008-03-12T15:38:00.002-04:00

U.S. Representative John Linder has another Fair Tax petition that you can sign. It is not the same one that Fair Tax.org is initiating.

Linder wants to present Congress with one million "citizen co-sponsors."

Click here to sign it.

POLL: McCain has a tough row-to-hoe

2008-03-11T17:45:00.000-04:00

61 people voted in the latest poll.

Question: What will it take for John McCain to gain your support/approval?

An important factor to keep in mind is that this poll began before Huckabee suspended his campaign for the presidency. With that said, the largest percentage of voters said, "As far as I can tell, there is nothing that can make me support him. My mind is made up." 27 voters (44%) chose this option.

Constituting the second-highest total of votes, 24 (39%) said that "McCain needs to lose the nomination to Huckabee. Then I'd like him more."

Coming in a distant third, 8 of you (13%) said that "McCain needs to be a strong conservative during the rest of the campaign."

1 of you (1%) said that "McCain needs to drift more to the middle/left during the general election," and 1 of you (1%) said, "Huckabee and/or Paul just need(s) to drop out. Then I'd support McCain."

Please vote in the new poll, and e-mail me or comment on the blog, explaining why you think your choice should be McCain's choice for VP.

Two Petitions and New Site

2008-03-08T16:07:00.003-05:00

Below, you can read my article, "The Republican Party Death Knell?"

Here, I just wanted to encourage you to sign this petition asking Mike Duncan, Chairman of the Republican National Committtee, to invite Mike Huckabee to give the keynote address at the Republican convention. Keynote is aiming high, but aiming too high is better than aiming too low, and Mike Huckabee deserves it anyway.

I also want you to visit the Fair Tax website and sign the petition they have going. They want 100,000 signatures to present to Congress on April 15.

Lastly, there's a new website spawned from Huck's Army called "F3 Coalition." Go there and sign up to be a part.

The Republican Party Death Knell?

2008-03-08T11:15:00.007-05:00

In my recent post "A Flood of Thoughts and Feelings," I pointed out that, if McCain picks a true conservative to be his running mate, I'd probably vote for him. But it has come to my attention that there is another factor which may come into play.

A sense of uneasiness is hanging over the world of avid Huckabee supporters, as they wait to see whether the Republican party will invite the Republican nomination's runner-up to speak at the convention in Minnesota six months from now. In my personal opinion, to not do so could be to commit political suicide. I know one thing: the party would be killing its chances to attain my vote.

For all the talk about "reaching out" to social conservatives and evangelicals, this would be a clear indicator that it's all just that: talk. Mike Huckabee regularly racked up a high percentage of the votes of evangelicals and values voters. Through plurality circumstances, he competed very strongly among voters describing themselves as "very conservative," and, when the field thinned to only two candidates, Huckabee repeatedly defeated McCain among this constituency.

Huckabee won the reddest of red states--Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee. He would've won South Carolina and Oklahoma, too, if it hadn't been for a split in the conservative vote between Huckabee and Thompson, and Huckabee and Romney. Missouri would also have gone his way.

Huckabee won his home state of Arkansas, a state that the GOP will struggle to grab if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee. If Obama is the Democratic nominee, most states, including the traditionally red ones, may become a challenge for the Elephant Party, as large turnouts threaten to change the outlook of the nation.

Huckabee won the second-highest number of delegates among Republicans. Following Texas, another deeply red state in which he garnered over half-a-million votes despite the media and the establishment practically refusing to admit he still was in the race, he surpassed Mitt Romney. Some may say that's the only reason Huckabee remained in the race, and, therefore, the delegate count is not legit. But I think it is legit when one candidate spits out some blood and puts his fists back up again, whilst the other candidate throws in the towel. I think it's legit when one candidate continues to run and place well on a shoestring budget, while the other drops out after having spent $35 million of his own fortune and millions more from donors' coffers.

I don't care if the Republican establishment feels that Huckabee stayed in too long. If they use that as an excuse to disinvite him from the convention, they might as well come out and say that the Human Life Amendment is not important enough to keep fighting for until someone actually has the nomination sewn up; the Federal Marriage Amendment should be abandoned at the first sign of a "presumptive" nominee; the First Amendment and Second Amendment should be stocked away in order to honor and "rally around" the frontrunner; a truly revolutionary plan for lower taxes (a.k.a., the Fair Tax) should be forgotten so that we can raise more money for the leading candidate.

The fact is, voters in Kansas and Louisiana wanted Huckabee to keep on keepin' on. Even in states where he lost--like Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin-- voters showed their support for the continuation of his effort (or, at least, took the opportunity to chastise McCain).

Implying that Huckabee somehow disqualified himself from a favored spot at the convention also suggests that voters who egged Huckabee on have disqualified themselves from voting Republican. But holy election, Batman! The Republicans don't want to leave you with that impression!

More than a handful of evangelicals, conservatives, and Huckabee supporters have already vowed not to vote for McCain (Of course, for the latter, that might change if Huckabee was selected VP). Others have barely persuaded themselves to vote for McCain. Some haven't decided what to do yet, while there are those who have hoops which McCain and the GOP have to jump through. A good chunk of citizens will be voting for McCain, but not working for him.

The disregard, disrespect, and even disdain that would be demonstrated toward these Americans would be the equivalent of a wet blanket being thrown over two sticks being rubbed together. Such an act would seal some decisions against McCain, make others, and dampen any enthusiasm some are attempting to stir up within themselves. It could be the death knell for the Republican Party in 2008...and beyond. (Selecting a Joe Liebermann, Rudy Giulani, or Mitt Romney to be Vice President would likely accomplish the same end.)

The question is, how would Mike Huckabee and all these ensuing nomads of voters respond? The former governor of Arkanasas and Baptist minister seems like such a nice guy that he might try to shrug it off for the sake of the party--and his future in it. Then again, every once in a while, you'll see the tiger inside him start to claw its way out as he gets fired up about an issue.

At that point, I think it may be time to make a concerted effort to end the two-party domination. The system has used us for long enough, simply because it's been of some use to us. When the latter no longer remains true, why should the former?

A speaking spot at the convention can serve as a springboard for a future presidential run. One need to look no further than Reagan in '76. He convinced the delegates that they had chosen the wrong man--Ford. He essentially became the 1980 "presumptive" nominee...in 1976! Similarly, the unknown Barack Obama made a name for himself in 2004 at the Democratic convention.

If the Republican party won't give Huckabee this opportunity, I can't help but conclude that they don't want him now...or in the future.

However, let's remember that nothing has been decided yet. I am preemptively addressing this issue. And I recommend that you do the same.

E-mail the GOP (specifically RNC Chairman Mike Duncan), telling them what you think about this situation. Be sure to cover some of the main points in this post. Also, sign this petition asking Mike Duncan, Chairman of the Republican National Committtee, to invite Mike Huckabee to give the keynote address at the Republican convention. Keynote is aiming high, but it's better to aim too high than too low.

EDIT: I originally stated that Huckabee "majoritatively racked up the evangelical vote." Although Huckabee did very well among evangelicals, oftentimes receiving the highest percentage of their vote, according to exit polls, he did not win a true majority.

Concerning WWCP

2008-03-05T18:35:00.003-05:00

Since I didn't work this information into my last behemoth of a post, I thought I'd tell you the future of WWCP. Yes, it has one.

I will continue to vet the remaining candidates, turning my focus more towards Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama than I have previously done. I will also be exploring third-party possibilities.

I hope to eventually finish my dissertation on why we need a Christian President.

Eventually, I'd like to transition this site to "We Want Christian Leaders." We need to elect conservative Christians to all political offices, not just the presidency. Now that it looks like the presidency is going to go to someone who is less-than-a-true conservative, we need to work all the harder to assure Congress and other offices don't go in that same direction.

A Flood of Thoughts and Feelings

2008-03-05T17:45:00.002-05:00

The dramatic events of last night caused a flood of thoughts and feelings to pour through my mind and heart. My head was spinning like a whirling dervish. I wasn't panicking, although I was emotional; instead, I was wondering, "What now?"

There's so much I want to write, so forgive me if it appears a little disjointed and long-winded.

What to do next?

As a Kentuckian, I still have not had the opportunity of voting in a primary or caucus. I will not be voting for Senator John McCain. Why? Well, for one thing, there's very little reason to do so. He's the presumptive nominee...finally, despite what the media would have you believe.
Secondly, I will take advantage of my voting privilege to continue to send him a message that his policies are not conservative enough for me.
Thirdly, there is some concern with how he got his name on Kentucky's ballot.

Naturally, therefore, I will not "rally behind him" until the convention--if at all. It's important to remember that anything can still happen. I'm not breaking out my McCain voodoo doll or anything, but September is a long ways away. McCain has the delegates, but the delegates have not cast their votes yet.

However, presuming that McCain will be the nominee, what will I do? First, I'll have to pray and ponder long and hard. I recommend that everyone of you do the same thing, regardless of whether you are set in stone against McCain or for voting for the lesser of two evils.

I can understand both perspectives. On the one hand, I think the Republican party needs to be cleansed. The party in power always has a tendency to become corrupt and complacent, and that has certainly happened to the Republican party. It's becoming more moderate, which, basically, means more liberal. If John McCain wins the election, the whole political spectrum will shift to the left. I believe a John McCain presidency would continue the slow, but steady, decline of America.

Could it be that we need four years of "Carter" for eight years of "Reagan"? Would a stinging defeat this November shake the foundations of the Republican party so that it would return to the firm footing of true conservatism and honor? It very well may be.

But I see the other side, too. How much damage could the Democrats do in four years? Universal healthcare, retreat in the war, and higher taxes would be just a few of the liberal things on their agenda. They'd push the "Freedom of Choice Act," which would try to negate pro-life measures; they'd push the "Employee Non-Discrimination Act" and other gay rights legislation; they might even try to get through an assault weapons ban. Not to mention the openings on the Supreme Court bench that may be available.

So, once again in politics, we are left with choosing between the lesser of two evils. But I'm not referring to McCain and the Democratic nominee. That's an easy choice. I'm referencing voting for McCain and not voting for McCain. We must determine what is more likely to have long-term detrimental effects.

History does not occur in blocks of four years, though it seems that way when we analyze presidential administrations. You can't just assume that the conservative base will be in as strong, influential, and authoritative position in 2012, if it anoints McCain this year.

Then again, a tremendous amount of damage can be done in four years' time. Some say that the Carter-Reagan analogy is faulty because Obama or Clinton would cause a lot more destruction in four years than Carter ever did. That's a valid point.

For me, I think this whole dilemma can be resolved quite simply; all John McCain has to do is pick a true, complete, Christian conservative to be his running mate. I would vote for such a ticket. I don't think I could reject a ticket that would have a true conservative one heartbeat away from the Oval Office.

"...but it is not this day." --Aragorn, Lord of the Rings: Return of the King

Having said all that (with a couple truckloads of words), we must reject the tendency to be short-sighted or tunnel-visioned. Much bigger things are at stake than one presidential contest.

A Huckabee supporter said last night that Huckabee "started a movement." That may or may not be exactly true, but I do believe that he inspired, united, cultivated, and mobilized a movement. He created a constituency of Americans who refused to be told what to do by the media, the pundits, the talk show hosts, and the establishmentarians. He spawned a monster that will only grow larger and hungrier with this taste of independent success. I can only really speak for myself, but, for myself, I can say: "Republicans beware; I am not your voting pet needing only to be stroked occasionally."

A candidacy may have temporarily ended, but the issues on which it was fueled most certainly have not. We still must battle for the Human Life Amendment, for lives in their earliest states--including embryos--for the marriage amendment, for the preservation of the First and Second Amendment, for border security, for the faithful execution of our laws, for the maintaining of our nation's sovereignty, for the Fair Tax, and for fair trade. We now must fight all the harder, because, if McCain is elected, we will face opponents in all directions. Thus, we must not be afraid to punch, kick, and fire both left and right.

If the Democrats gain the White House and a larger majority in Congress, we must be prepared to stand our ground--to shun the temptation to retreat or compromise--amidst heavy artillery.

The sad fact is, either way, we won't pass and ratify the HLA, the FMA, or the Fair Tax in the next four years. But, in all honesty, it would have been nearly impossible for Huckabee to have achieved those feats during his first term. He would've used the bully pulpit of the presidency to build a consensus towards that verdict. Now, we must lift our voices as one, so as to accomplish what he could have...if only.

Members of Huck's Army are brainstorming ideas of what our next course of action should be. The ideas range from transforming Huckabee's unofficial grassroots community into a more generic conservative pact, to devising a new publication with social conservatism as its central focus, to retrieving and storing supplies (like signs) for re-use in 2012, to starting savings accounts for 2012, to starting a 527 group. Christian conservatives have caught just a glimpse of the attainable success when some concerted effort is put forth. They do not want to be caught off guard next time around. They are not willing to relinquish the idea of a President Mike Huckabee.

We've lost a battle. But the only way to ensure that we've lost the war is to surrender now.

Why did Huckabee lose?

Awed by Huckabee's concession speech, Fox News' anchor Brit Hume asked Sean Hannity why he thought Huckabee lost the nomination. Hannity replied with something very close to, "Well, I always go back to Super Tuesday. Huckabee and Romney split the conservative vote, and I think, if Huckabee had dropped out, we might have seen something different happen."

So, Huckabee lost because he didn't drop out sooner? Never fear. I have a much more sensible answer than that one.

1. Plurality: In retrospect, many are pointing to South Carolina as the beginning of the end for Huckabee. Fred Thompson, a long-time friend of John McCain and a former presidential candidate, made his "last stand" in South Carolina and rather suspiciously targeted all of his attacks against Mike Huckabee, when Huckabee and McCain were running neck-and-neck in the Palmetto State. McCain edged out Huckabee 33-30, likely due to Thompson's consistent barrage and the fact that he attracted some conservatives.

That loss was a big blow to Huckabee's momentum, both in the voting sense and the fundraising sense. In contrast, McCain was propelled into a victory in Florida. Huckabee finished fourth. Entering South Carolina, the polls in Florida showed a four-way tie for first place. The pieces of that puzzle aren't too difficult to put together.

Then, on Super Tuesday, Romney got in Huckabee's way. Without Romney, Huckabee would likely have won Oklahoma and Missouri, both of which he narrowly lost to McCain. I'm not suggesting Romney should have gotten out of the race. After all, I despised Romney supporters telling Huckabee the same thing. I'm just saying that plurality can hurt, especially since moderates simultaneously united behind John McCain as Rudy Giulani exited the race with a lonely delegate and endorsed the Arizona Senator.

2. Funds: A lot of the pundits seem to think that Romney "really" came in second place, and that he is actually the "heir apparent" to the Republican party. How do they figure? Huckabee competed fiercely against Romney with $10 million while Romney spent upwards of $35 million of his own fortune! That's not counting the treasure of donations that he spent.
Also, John McCain benefited from a $4 million dollar loan and public financing's provisions.

3. Messed-Up System: Right about now, the Democrats are bemoaning their proportional representation system. But the Republican setup has problems of its own. I guess I have to side with states' party rights on this issue, but the arbitrary discrepancy between "winner-take-all" states (several blue states, like New York and New Jersey, and others somewhat purple, like Missouri and Virginia) and others was very damaging to Huckabee's campaign. Then, there was the Louisiana fiasco. Since no one received 50% of the vote, none of the delegates were pledged. Hence, even though Huckabee won the Pelican State's primary, the majority of the delegates made clear that they intended to support McCain. That is the antithesis of democracy and has to change!
McCain heavily benefited from winning blue states that he'll have next-to-no chance of winning in the general election. I don't know if there is anyway for the Republican party to account for this, but it should try.

4. Debate Inequality: This was reaffirmed in a crystal clear manner in the last debate preceding Super Tuesday. CNN deliberately put Romney and McCain next to each other, and closest to the moderators. They placed no time limits on answers, yet they cut Ron Paul off after just a few seconds at one point. Of course, they let McCain and Romney go on and on and back and forth like a couple of schoolboys.

5. Media Bias and Misinformation: Perhaps more than any other entity, the media has the ability to make a falsity appear true. They have different ways of doing this. One way is quite blatant, like when they repeatedly, erroneously, said that it was "mathematically impossible" for Mike to win the nomination. There are more subtle ways, as well, like when they simply stopped covering Huckabee, causing the average person to think that he was out of it, or an afterthought, at most.
Related is the fact that so many Christian leaders listened to the media and the negative propaganda, refusing to openly support Huckabee.

Anyways, those are five things which we have to overcome next time. We need droves of conservative Christians to start saving their money, getting involved politically on the local level, and infiltrating the journalism industry.

Did I Forget Someone?

I almost feel ashamed. I've gone this far in this post with only the implicit mention of God through prayer and the line that "anything can still happen." Well, let me put a stop to that right now.

"And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose." (Romans 8:28)

"In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world." (John 16:33)

"As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive." (Genesis 50:20)

This did not surprise God. It didn't catch him off-guard. It wasn't forced upon Him against His will. God can use this turn of events to turn around America. But even if he does not (Daniel 3:17-18), I will still serve Him, and I know that He will bring about the greatest good for those that love Him. He will never forsake us. Let us never forsake Him. Let us continue to pray. Let us continue to work for the kingdom of God.

Military Men and Women, Don't Be Pigeonholed!

2008-03-02T16:00:00.005-05:00

One of the media’s favorite things to do is to “pigeonhole” candidates and their constituencies. For instance, Mike Huckabee is, according to the media, the “evangelical candidate” and evangelicals vote for him. John McCain is the “military hero” and veterans vote for him.

The interesting thing is, for the media, it oftentimes only takes a simple majority—or even a plurality—from exit polls to paint a candidate into a demographical corner.

Well, I’m writing to dispel the myth that you, as a military man or woman, should feel compelled to vote for John McCain. I believe that there are (at least) three reasons why you should consider being part of the “minority” of veterans and military persons supporting Mike Huckabee.

1.) Mike Huckabee’s positions and record on the military and foreign policy.

a.) Huckabee wants to build a stronger military, and he believes in the military strategy of “irresistible force”—NOT a “light footprint,” which likely contributed to our problems in Iraq.

b.) He supports finishing the job in Iraq and opposes a timetable for withdrawal. He was willing to give the surge a shot, although, as any Commander-in-Chief should be, he was concerned about our forces being overextended and overstretched.

c.) He promises to “fight the war on terror with the intensity and single-mindedness that it deserves,” if elected.

d.) He is a strong supporter of Israel.

e.) He advocates a “Veterans’ Bill of Rights.”

As a postnote, it should not be forgotten that Huckabee has ten years of executive experience. For the last twenty some-odd years, John McCain has been a senator. Huckabee would simultaneously come in with executive experience and a fresh perspective, not being a Washington insider.

2.) Fundamental freedoms.

John McCain has failed to stand up for in the Senate what he fought for in the military. He has restricted our First and Second Amendment rights, and he opposes a Human Life Amendment, which would ensure our first unalienable right—life—endowed by our Creator and recorded in our Declaration of Independence. In contrast, Mike Huckabee has been a consistent and complete supporter of these basic liberties.

3.) John McCain’s record on military and veterans' issues.

I honestly don’t know enough about the ins and outs of veterans’ affairs or the history of John McCain to make a definitive judgment on this. But I encourage you to check out his voting record and the rest of his past. --------EDIT 9/04/08: I've decided to take down the link to the Vietnam Vets taking on McCain. I have way too much doubt in the credibility of the attack (and way too little information period), and I do not want to slander John McCain. I'm sorry I put the link up in the first place. However, here is the link to John McCain's voting record on veteran's issues: ---------

http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=53270&type=category&category=66&go.x=25&go.y=16

Now, if the be-all and end-all of your decision-making process revolves around military and foreign policy experience, these three points won't change your mind. But, otherwise, I hope this article makes you realize that John McCain is not your only option.

A Letter to Pro-Second Amendment Ohioans

2008-02-29T16:14:00.002-05:00

Here's another slightly edited letter to pro-gunners:

As an Ohioan with an invested interest in the unadulterated preservation of the Second Amendment, you are being told by the media and the Republican establishment that you have two choices. They say that you can either choose the least of three evils by voting for John McCain, or you can cast a worthless, meaningless vote for Mike Huckabee. I beg to differ. A vote for Mike Huckabee still is valuable! In fact, Ohioans have an opportunity to tremendously impact the presidential race!

Mike Huckabee doesn't have to reach 1,191 delegates. He just has to keep John McCain from getting that many officially pledged before the convention. Plus, Ohio is not a winner-take-all state, so the polls that show John McCain well in the lead should not dissuade you from making your voice be heard. Every vote counts!

Even if Mike Huckabee cannot pull off the extreme upset in this election, you have the chance to emphasize to John McCain that moderately defending the Second Amendment is not enough. For, there are substantial differences between Huckabee and McCain on the issue of the right to keep and bear arms.

Senator McCain attempts to portray himself as a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, yet he and his "maverick" mentality have wandered into anti-gun territory multiple times, so much so that the Gun Owners of America gave him an "F" grade in 2004 and 2006. GOA goes on to say that McCain supported "initiatives to severely regulate gun shows and register gun buyers"; he advocated laws that would require you to keep your guns locked up at home; and he introduced a compromise bill of gun show regulations.

Furthermore, the restrictions McCain helped put on political free speech affect Second Amendment activists.

In stark contrast stands Mike Huckabee, a consistent, adamant supporter of your constitutional right to keep and bear arms. He doesn’t have to hide any Second Amendment skeletons in his campaign closet, because he has none. The Gun Owners of America says that Huckabee "has proven himself to be a steadfast friend to gun owners and the Second Amendment."

Who are you going to support? Will you vote for a candidate who talks the talk and walks the walk...today...but hasn’t always in the past? Or will you vote for the candidate who has persistently and consistently been a proponent and a protector of your right to protect yourself? Stand up for principle! Stand up for the Second Amendment!

Thank you for your time.
...
p.s. Here is the documentation for the information in this e-mail:
Mike Huckabee on the Second Amendment: http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=18

Gun Owners of America on Mike Huckabee: http://gunowners.org/pres08/huckabee.htm

Gun Owners of America on John McCain: http://gunowners.org/pres08/mccain.htm

Gun Owners Rating of John McCain and Related Articles: http://www.gunowners.org/mccaintb.htm

Not THIS Conservative

2008-02-24T18:25:00.001-05:00

Count me among the conservatives who are not "rallying behind" John McCain in the wake of a New York Times smear job implicating a romantic relationship between McCain and a female lobbyist. Supposedly, the shakily-supported hitpiece has caused conservatives, formerly hostile to McCain, to "run to the defense" of the Arizona senator. Anyways, that's what I'm hearing. Reportedly, the article has actually been an amazingly efficient fundraising tool for the Republican frontrunner and the GOP in general.

While I don't think the New York Times lived up to journalistic standards in this story, I don't think the story is necessarily untrue. McCain has already found greener grass once in his life, and, on top of that, I'm sure it's extremely difficult for anyone who's been in Washington as long as he has to avoid some form or extent of corruption. That's why so much has been made this election season about electing someone from "outside of Washington" or simply not a "Washington insider."

But that's beside the point, for now. In any case, this story doesn't change the fact that I am not supporting McCain, and I certainly am not donating money to him, especially with a campaign financing controversy brewing around him (Link).

So it looks like McCain is being unfairly attacked. That doesn't change McCain-Feingold. So it looks like the New York Times, a nemesis of conservatism, is back to bashing Republicans, after recentlye endorsing McCain for the Republican nomination. That doesn't change McCain-Kennedy. It doesn't change McCain's opposition to the marriage amendment or the human life amendment. It doesn't change his record on embryonic stem-cell research or the Second Amendment. It doesn't change the fact that, as far as I can tell, he wants to maintain the same old broken system of income and corporate taxation (even if lessened) and unfair "free" trade.

Fortunately, I'm just a little too sharp-witted to blindly allow McCain and the GOP establishment to exploit this NYT article--to use it as a ploy to make a formerly resistant sheep willingly fall into the fold. I'm hoping there are many other conservatives like me.

This race isn't over, unless conservatives allow the mainstream media and the establishmentarians, who we so regularly distrust, tell us it is.

POLL RESULTS: Your Course of Action, if Huckabee Fails to Win Nomination

2008-02-22T17:40:00.004-05:00

Thank you for the record participation in WWCP's latest poll. 134 votes!!!

The question is one weighing on many conservative minds right about now: If Mike Huckabee doesn't win the Republican nomination, what will you do?

You didn't have to be a Huckabee supporter to vote in the poll. The point was, IF McCain gets the nomination, what will your course of action be?

The vote was extremely split, which is bad news for John McCain.

"Vote for McCain" was still the most popular answer, but it only garnered 29% (39 votes).

27% (37 votes) are still undecided, but they aren't happy with their options. "I don't know which; in any case, I'd feel terrible."

19% (26 votes) will go with Obama or Clinton. This is extremely bad news for McCain, unless these voters were Democrats to begin with.

14% (19 votes) will simply sit out this election.

9% (13 votes) will vote third-party.

If McCain wins the nomination, he's going to have to work himself to death trying to get the votes (and support) of the undecided, the sitters-out, the third-party voters, and those about to cross-over to the Democrats.

A new poll will be up shortly.

POLL RESULTS: Faith and the Presidential Campaign

2008-02-22T17:28:00.004-05:00

I've been too busy lately to post the results of the last poll, so now I have two polls to cover. This post covers the first.

Question: When you hear presidential candidates say they are Christians or speak of Judeo-Christian principles, what do you do?

Total Votes: 73

In a victory through a plurality of votes, 32 (43%) of you said, "If they have consistently acted and spoken in such a way, I believe them. Otherwise, I don't."

In second place, 27 (36%) of you chose a somewhat similar answer, saying, "I listen carefully to see whether or not it sounds like they know what they are talking about."

Coming in at a distant third, 9 (12%) of you said that faith shouldn't have a part in the presidential campaign. "I don't like it: candidates shouldn't be talking about faith and religion."

A few (4%) of you find it amusing, saying, "I usually burst out laughing. I just can't take most of them seriously."

Finally, a couple (2%) of you feel cynical about politicians trying to come off as religious. "I usually shrug it off with some or a lot cynicism/skepticism."

Open Letter to Sen. McCain: Explain How You're BETTER

2008-02-20T19:15:00.000-05:00

I don't know if it's worth my while to actually send this to McCain, but I decided to write it in an "open letter" style anyway. The gist of the letter is that the biggest thing going for McCain is that he has the delegate lead--not that he is the best candidate.

Dear Senator McCain,

It seems to me that you expect all conservatives to unite behind you simply because you are the so-called “presumptive nominee” and because the establishmentarians of the Republican Party are telling us to do so. Well, I am writing to let you know that that’s not going to cut it for this conservative. Before you can capture my vote—and, more importantly, my active support—you have to explain to me why you’re a better candidate than Governor Mike Huckabee.

How are your position and record on life better? You don’t support a Human Life Amendment, and you have wavered on embryonic stem-cell research.

How are your position and record on marriage better? You oppose a federal marriage amendment.

How are your position and record on the Second Amendment better? You have fought for regulations on gun shows, mandatory trigger locks, and other anti-gun measures.

How are your position and record on the First Amendment better? Through your campaign finance reform, you have hampered the grassroots efforts of pro-life, pro-family, and pro-Second Amendment groups, restricting one of our most fundamental rights—that of free speech.

How are your position and record on immigration better? You wanted to give instant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, and, when your bill was brutally defeated by a massive uprising of the American people, you simply decided to tell yourself that it’s because Americans don’t trust the government. You don’t understand that Americans—conservative ones, at least—will not accept what is, in reality, amnesty, regardless of how you try to parse definitions.

How are your position and record on the economy better? You opposed the Bush tax cuts, though you now say you want to make them permanent; you want to impose burdensome environmental regulations; and you want to keep, for the most part, the same old broken system of income taxes, corporate taxes, and unfair trade.

Saying that you’re the “presumptive nominee” is not a case-proof for your candidacy’s superiority. Leading the pack does not automatically make one more suitable to be president, unless you want to concede that George W. Bush was a better candidate than you in 2000. You know as well as I that you won South Carolina by the assistance of Fred Thompson; Florida because of momentum coming out of South Carolina; Oklahoma and Missouri due to the conservative split between Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney; and California, Illinois, and the northeastern states partially because of Rudy Giulani’s political demise and partly because you’re not as conservative as you want people to believe. Since then, you’ve won primaries and caucuses largely on the basis of media imbalance and the presumption that the nomination is already yours.

I’m tired of you pointing to endless endorsements by those considered conservative, for two reasons. First of all, the door swings both ways. If you want to tout conservative endorsements as proving that you are a conservative, then what are we to think when you are backed by moderates and liberals like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Rudy Giulani, and Joe Liebermann? Secondly, although endorsements do mean something, other factors come into play, and to rely on endorsers for the affirmation of your credentials is to rely on a common logical fallacy. We are living in the age of the Internet, talk radio, and 24/7 cable news channels. An endorsee can no longer hide behind the reputation of his endorsers.

You could just point out the fact that you think, in your own mind, that your positions are better. I’m sure that such a proclamation would be honest. But I know you're too savvy to try to persuade the conservative base of the Republican Party that it’s been wrong all along.

Instead, you’ve been emphasizing your military expertise throughout the entire campaign season. I respect your service, but no great military leader says, “Keep your heads up, boys. We’re only going to be here for 100 more years.” And, as noble as it sounds when you say, “I’d rather lose an election than a war,” the fact is, if you lose to the Democrats, you will effectively lose the war. Sometimes, you have to temper your rhetoric a bit for the sake of the long-term, greater good. You are not going to be victorious in November with the platform that the vast majority of newborn babies will not see the end of our military presence in Iraq before they die.

Senator McCain, I understand that you are more conservative than Senator Obama. But who isn’t? I’m not interested in picking the lesser of two evils at this point. In fact, I may never be, but that’s beside the point. There’s still a “good” in this race: Mike Huckabee. I’m voting for him.

If you want to convince me to act otherwise, perhaps you should demand a debate with Governor Huckabee. Then, you can explain why you're better.

Fundamental Reasons to Vote for Huckabee over McCain

2008-02-17T19:09:00.003-05:00

I believe that the reasons to vote for Mike Huckabeee over John McCain come down to fundamental, foundational, traditional, classic values.

Our First Unalienable Right: Life

McCain thinks the states should decide for themselves. Huckabee thinks God has already decided.

Our Third Unalienable Right: The Pursuit of Happiness

Our tax system tries pretty hard to hinder people in their pursuit of happiness. Not that happiness is all about money, but your money should not be plundered from you by the government. Huckabee wants to make it so that you decide the taxes you pay. With the Fair Tax, you only get taxed when you consume, not when you produce. The Fair Tax would also eliminate other unfair ways which the government pilfers its people. McCain says he wants lower taxes, but he also voted against the Bush tax cuts. And, regardless of how much he wants to lower taxes, he still wants to keep the same old broken, unjust system for the most part.

The First Amendment

Through veiled "campaign finance reform," McCain thinks that the government should have the authority to tell you how you are allowed to say something, when you are allowed to say it, and what you have to do before you can say it. Huckabee believes in free speech and the Constitution.

The Second Amendment

Huckabee understands that the Second Amendment isn't something to be toyed with. He knows that our right to keep and bear arms is a check on tyranny. Any regulation or restriction on that right is extremely risky. McCain obviously doesn't realize that, and he's not afraid to hamper Second Amendment activist efforts through his "campaign finance reform."

The Cornerstone of the Family

McCain believes that marriage is between a man and a woman, but he opposes a marriage amendment. Huckabee knows marriage is between a man and a woman, and he's willing to fight for it.

The Rule of Law

Apparently, John McCain does not understand that, in America, we are not in the business of rewarding lawbreakers. We do not assist people in achieving profitable ends by bad means.

It's not just about getting a secure border first, although McCain botched that principle when he teamed up with one of the most liberal senators in the history of the United States--Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts--to design comprehensive immigration "reform," or, more accurately, "deform" or "ill-informed."

It's not just about being a heavy-handed law-enforcer, either. It's about fairness, and it's about people starting their lives in America with their heads held high.

Those are not the only reasons why I am voting for Huckabee over McCain. Huckabee is a fresh face. Unlike McCain, he is not a Washington insider. Huckabee has over ten years of executive experience. McCain has none. Huckabee is compassionate and coolheaded. McCain is known to be hotheaded with a foul tongue.

Finally, in my humble opinion, McCain doesn't have much of a chance at winning in a general election. He probably can't inspire conservatives; he probably can't rally evangelicals; he can't attract the youth vote; and he's not a great, articulate debater. Huckabee is much younger than McCain; he's a spectacular communicator. He can inspire conservatives, and many evangelicals have rallied around him.

McCain Might Only Get Worse; or, The Case for Huckabee to Stay in the Race

2008-02-16T20:50:00.000-05:00

Conservatives are not happy with John McCain. That’s become pretty clear. In state after state, they’ve demonstrated that they will not obediently fall in line behind the Arizona senator, even though many establishment conservatives have reconciled themselves to his nomination and endorsed him. For conservatives, the “Straight Talk Express” veers to the middle—and sometimes to the left—of the political spectrum too often to overlook. But here’s one thing I don’t even think most conservatives have realized yet: McCain might only get worse.

Usually, the trend during a general election is that both parties’ candidates drift toward the center of the public policy gamut, trying to widen their appeal as much as possible without losing their identities. Rhetoric softens, platforms become less ideological, and rallies are made to be more expansive and inclusive than hostile and polarizing.

Although such political strategy can seem like insincere pandering, it is generally overlooked and accepted as a necessary component to victory. But there’s a difference this year, and that difference is embodied in John McCain.

What do you have when a moderate conservative jockeys for the yellow-dotted line, rather than the left lane or the right? That’s the question about John McCain to which I want to know the answer. We’ve already seen that he is more than willing to crossover—not just “reach across”—the aisle on a plethora of issues. Will he actually lean more liberal than conservative in the months leading up to November?

What’s more, John McCain is totally indebted to moderates and independents for his success, and he knows it. Wouldn’t one logically suspect that he will pander to his dear middle? Not only that, but one of Barack Obama’s core constituencies is the independent demographic. Thus, if he becomes the democratic nominee, he and McCain will likely engage in a fierce battle over who is more “moderate” and "non-partisan." With Obama holding the massive advantage of not being the most hawkish advocate of the Iraq War known to man, that’d be a losing battle for McCain.

These are the reasons why it is so important that Mike Huckabee remains in the race, and that people continue to vote for him. McCain must be reminded—in a heavy-handed, incessant manner—that he is going nowhere without the conservative base. He must be told that he needs the conservative base fired up about, not just resigned to, him, in order for him to be victorious. He must be warned that, if he drifts toward the middle anymore, he’ll lose the lifeboat of the conservative voting bloc. He must be cautioned that, if he deems it unnecessary to select a staunch conservative as his VP, he will be defeated. But most importantly, he must be reminded that the race for the nomination is not over.

Note: I should add, anything could happen at any time to shake up this race. That is why it is so important for Huckabee to keep running at least until McCain has 1,191 (a majority of) delegates.

Obama Concerned with the Prospects of Protecting BORN Children, Too

2008-02-15T23:58:00.004-05:00

For those of you who may be considering voting for Obama as a protest against the Republican party, or just because you like the guy, read this article:

Obama is the Most Pro-Abortion Candidate Ever

Please, research Barack before you fall under his weird trance.

Not Over Yet...

2008-02-10T15:15:00.000-05:00

Kansas Republican Caucus Results:

Huckabee: 60%
McCain: 24%
Paul: 11%
Romney: 3%

Louisiana Republican Primary Results:

Huckabee: 43%
McCain: 42%
Romney: 7% (No longer running; name was still on ballot)
Paul: 5%

Washington Republican Caucus Results: (87% Reporting)

McCain: 26%
Huckabee: 24% (Difference of 200 votes)
Paul: 21%
Romney: 16%
Uncommitted: 13%

Well, what all the pundits learned yesterday, to their surprise, was that this race is not over yet. Huckabee won resoundingly in Kansas, adding to the list of red, southern states that McCain can't win. Just imagine how big the margin might also have been in Georgia, Alabama, and Tennessee had Romney and Huckabee not been splitting support. In such a scenario, Huckabee probably would've come out on top in Oklahoma and Missouri, the latter of which McCain carried on the backs of the metropolitan areas. If Thompson hadn't made his last stand a virtual exercise in tearing down Huckabee in South Carolina, Mike would've been victorious there as well .

This is an indisputable trend. McCain regularly does well in cities and states that aren't in step with the core of the Republican party. Yet, when he does enter red territory, he's greeted rudely with defeats everywhere he turns or close victories caused by other circumstances. Especially when the precincts of rural counties report, it looks like McCain is treated more like an outsider than a fellow conservative.

Coupled with that is the fact that some people may be voting for Huckabee as a protest vote (although, clearly, some Romney supporters weren't afraid to still vote for him). Let me tell you: I'll take all of those I can get. You may have to hold your nose to vote for Huckabee, or you may have resigned yourself to a McCain nomination, but, if you can't vote for Huckabee on his own merits, tell McCain with your ballot that you are not going to blindly follow him lockstep through his maverick expeditions into liberal territory. The saying goes that "Republicans fall in line." Well, I'm not that kind of a Republican, and I don't think you are either.

The results in Kansas could have been much more easily marginalized if the results from Louisiana hadn't strengthened them. Huckabee's narrow victory there demonstrated that he's not a one-state post-Romney wonder. However, the jubilation over the Pelican State is tempered, because of weird state party rules. If no candidate receives greater than fifty percent of the vote, then all the state's delegates go to the convention unpledged. It's a nonsensical format, but one thing is positive: McCain does not have those delegates added to his total automatically.

Washington state is an interesting story. The turnout was extremely low for the Evergreen State's caucus on the Republican side, and the state has a primary on the 19th. Yet, for a purple state, Huckabee sure gave McCain a run for his money there. But, I should add, it's not over. Thirteen percent of the precincts have yet to report in Washington; McCain and Huckabee are only separated by 200 votes. The final result could be much closer--or even totally different--even though McCain has been declared the winner. Keep an eye out there.

The battle for Huckabee doesn't get any easier. In fact, since he gained no delegates from Louisiana, the events of yesterday served mostly as a prolonging of and a momentum boost for the campaign. Now, our eyes turn to Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. Those aren't exactly Alabama or Georgia, but we'll see what happens. Virginia is winner-take-all, which makes it a virtual must-win for Huckabee, as almost every contest is from here on out. If the District of Columbia went Huckabee's way, it would be a stinging reprimand of McCain and his insider status.

If you live in any of those states, get out and vote! Make your voice be heard!

Finally...

2008-02-07T20:58:00.000-05:00

Finally, James Dobson is going to come out and endorse the only consistently, completely, and passionately socially conservative in the race. Better late than never. Hopefully, this will give Mike a publicity boost.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gedH ... ----------
Huckabee to Get Evangelical Leader's Nod
By ERIC GORSKI – 12 minutes ago

James Dobson, one of the nation's most prominent evangelical Christian leaders, is about to endorse former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, The Associated Press has learned.

Dobson, founder of Colorado Springs, Colo.-based Focus on the Family, talked to the GOP presidential hopeful Thursday and later was to release a statement explaining his choice, said Gary Schneeberger, a spokesman for Dobson.

Huckabee had long sought Dobson's endorsement, believing he is the best fit to advance Dobson's conservative, moral worldview.

Until now, Dobson had never endorsed a GOP presidential hopeful during the primary campaign. But he ruled out front-runner John McCain in a blistering commentary on Super Tuesday, and on Thursday the fight for the GOP nomination narrowed to a two-man race between McCain and Huckabee, who is far behind in the delegate count but pledged to fight on. Mitt Romney, a third hopeful trying to claim the conservative label, dropped out of the race Thursday.

Dobson released a statement Tuesday that criticized McCain for his support of embryonic stem cell research, his opposition to a federal anti-gay marriage amendment and for his temper and use of foul language.

He said if McCain were the nominee, he would not cast a ballot for president for the first time in his life.Dobson had left open the possibility that he would vote for either Romney or Huckabee, but endorsed neither.

Throughout the unsettled GOP race, Dobson picked his spots to signal that some candidates simply didn't meet his standards. Dobson wrote on a conservative news Web site that he wouldn't support former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani should he win the Republican nomination. Dobson called Giuliani an "unapologetic supporter of abortion on demand" and criticized him for signing a bill in 1997 creating domestic-partnership benefits in New York City.At one point, Dobson said he'd consider voting for a minor-party candidate if faced with Giuliani as the nominee.

Later, Dobson ruled out former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson for his stands on issues. Dobson also said Thompson "has no passion, no zeal, and no apparent 'want to.'"Dobson emphasizes that when he endorses candidates, he is doing so as a private citizen and not as a representative of Focus on the Family, a tax-exempt organization.

Updated Letter to Pro-Gunners

2008-02-07T20:34:00.000-05:00

I had to do a little adjusting to my mass e-mail to pro-gun citizens. If you want to join the effort, just sign up as a member of Huck's Army and go to the post "Second Amendment E-Mail Campaign."

As someone with an invested interest in the unadulterated preservation of the Second Amendment, you are being told by the media that you have only one choice--John McCain--for President now that Mitt Romney has suspended his campaign. I respectfully beg to differ. Mike Huckabee is still in this race, and the differences between his record on the Second Amendment and John McCain's are quite substantial.

John McCain attempts to portray himself as a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, yet he and his "maverick" mentality have wandered into anti-gun territory multiple times, so much so that the Gun Owners of America gave him an "F" grade in 2004 and 2006 and called his record "Abysmal, wretched, and pathetic." GOA goes on to say that McCain supported "initiatives to severely regulate gun shows and register gun buyers"; he advocated laws that would require you to keep your guns locked up at home; and he introduced a compromise bill of gun show regulations. Furthermore, the restrictions McCain helped put on political free speech affect Second Amendment activists. In stark contrast stands Mike Huckabee, a consistent, adamant supporter of your constitutional right to keep and bear arms. He doesn’t have to hide any Second Amendment skeletons in his campaign closet, because he has none. The Gun Owners of America says that Huckabee "has proven himself to be a steadfast friend to gun owners and the Second Amendment."Who are you going to support? Will you vote for a candidate who talks the talk and walks the walk...today...but hasn’t always in the past? Or will you vote for the candidate who has persistently and consistently been a proponent and a protector of your right to protect yourself?

We could be headed to a brokered convention. Huckabee is suited well to the upcoming states holding primaries and caucuses, and, if he wins the majority, he will be propelled into the gargantuan contests of Ohio and Texas.

Don't settle for less than a true proponent of the Second Amendment!

[Kingdom Advancer]

p.s. Here is the documentation for the information in this e-mail:

Mike Huckabee on the Second Amendment: http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=18

Gun Owners of America on Mike Huckabee: http://gunowners.org/pres08/huckabee.htm
Gun Owners of America on John McCain: http://gunowners.org/pres08/mccain.htm
Gun Owners Rating of John McCain: http://www.gunowners.org/mccaintb.htm
Gun Owners: "Abysmal, wretched, and pathetic" comment: http://www.gunowners.org/mccaintb.htm

Maryland Right to Life Endorses Huckabee

2008-02-07T17:57:00.001-05:00

Boy, my letters work fast! ; )

See it here.

Letter to Maryland Right to Life

2008-02-07T17:38:00.000-05:00

Huckabee needs to maintain his momentum, and more endorsements from pro-life groups could help him do just that. I am sending this letter to Maryland and Virginia for now, although I may also send it to Washington and Louisiana.

Maryland Right to Life: info@mdrtl.org
Virginia Society for Human Life: vshl67@comcast.net

Now that Mitt Romney has suspended his presidential candidacy, there is one fewer pro-life advocate with a chance of becoming President of the United States. Of those remaining, Mike Huckabee stands head and shoulders above the rest.

Huckabee is and always has been completely, consistently, and passionately pro-life. The issue of abortion is what originally got him involved in politics, and he passed pro-life legislation while governor of Arkansas. In this presidential campaign, he has clearly placed the pro-life cause at the forefront, and he is the only candidate who supports a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution.

John McCain does not support such an amendment, believing that we should allow the states to decide for themselves by overturning Roe v. Wade. Although I do believe that is an appropriate first step, I believe it is only that--a first step. For me at least, the pro-life movement isn't about just returning power to the states: it's about protecting all life. In addition, McCain has been wishy-washy on the topic of embryonic stem-cell research, and it is obvious that he has not made the pro-life effort a prioritized part of his platform, mentioning it only in an attempt to confirm his "conservatism."

The pundits are leaving Huckabee's campaign for dead. But the pundits are routinely mistaken. Consider Super Tuesday: none of the "analysts" or "experts" expected Huckabee to do so well. You can help prove them wrong again! You can show that, for many, the issue of life is still paramount! You can make a stand for life! Endorse Mike Huckabee for President!

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Missouri, New Jersey, and Tennessee right-to-life groups have already endorsed Huckabee. Kansans for Life added to the growing momentum with their endorsement announcement today! Will you be next?

Thank you for your time.

Dear Mitt Romney Supporters,

2008-02-07T16:39:00.000-05:00

I had deep, serious, and irreconcilable concerns with Governor Romney which prevented me from supporting him. However, I believe that you sincerely felt that he was the best candidate and the strongest conservative. Therefore, I respectfully admonish you to now rally around Mike Huckabee!

Life:

Mitt Romney had promised to cultivate a "culture of life" as president. You supported him for that. Mike Huckabee has received the endorsements of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, and Tennessee pro-life and right-to-life groups. Although the National Right to Life PAC did not officially endorse a specific candidate, it sent out a statement saying "that Governor Huckabee has taken the strongest pro-life position on all of the life issues of any of the remaining candidates for president."

Governor Huckabee has been a complete, consistent, passionate advocate of the pro-life cause. He is the only remaining candidate who supports a constitutional Human Life Amendment, and he passed pro-life legislation while governor of Arkansas.

Marriage:

Mitt Romney has said that he believes marriage is between one man and one woman. You supported him in that belief. Mike Huckabee has been a constant and fervent supporter of marriage. He is the only remaining candidate who supports a federal marriage amendment.

Second Amendment:

Mitt Romney vowed to defend your right to keep and bear arms. You supported that vow. Mike Huckabee has shown, by his words and actions, that he will adamantly and relentlessly protect your Second Amendment rights. The Gun Owners of America's analysis states that Huckabee "has proven himself to be a steadfast friend to gun owners and the Second Amendment."

Immigration:

Mitt Romney promised no amnesty and a secure border. You liked that promise. Huckabee has signed a "No Amnesty Pledge." He received the personal endorsement of Jim Gilchrist, the founder of the Minutemen, and he proposed a 9-Point Border Security Plan. He thinks the border can be secured within eighteen months.

Military/War:

Mitt Romney said that he supported a strong military, the surge in Iraq, and finishing the job in Iraq. You agreed with all those stands. Huckabee holds the same stands. He wants to build up the military; he supported the surge, although he didn't like where the extra soldiers came from; and he wants to finish the job.

Executive Experience:

You appreciated Mitt Romney's experience as both a governor and entrepreneur. Governor Huckabee also has executive experience. He was governor of Arkansas for over ten years, being named one of the top five governors in the country and voted by his colleagues to be the chairman of the National Governors' Association.

Taxes/Economy:

Mitt Romney supported lower taxes. So does Mike Huckabee. "Both Huckabee and Romney signed the Americans for Tax Reform Taxpayer Protection Pledge. John McCain has not signed the pledge (atr.org)." (Link)

In fact, Huckabee wants to eliminate income and corporate taxes altogether through the revolutionary Fair Tax.

Mike Huckabee still has a legitimate shot at this nomination, regardless of what the (frequently wrong) pundits and McCain spin-doctors will try to convince you. He has a good shot in several states coming up, including Kansas, Louisiana, Washington, Virginia, Maryland, and Wisconsin. If he can win the majority of those, he will be propelled into the gargantuan contests of Ohio and Texas.

He could really use your support. Will you join the conservative left in this race?

**For more information on the positions of Huckabee and McCain, see my "Ranking Their Positions" series.

Another Tempered Triumph...

2008-02-07T16:19:00.000-05:00

Mitt Romney dropped out of the race today. His poor performance on Super Tuesday, coupled with the massive amounts of money he had already poured into the campaign, led him to "suspend" his campaign (a technical difference from "end" relevant to a brokered convention), saying, essentially, that he didn't want to hurt the Republican party's chances in November by remaining in the race.

Mitt Romney and Rudy Giulani were the two main reasons that I started this blog back in early November. But their defeats are only soberly satisfying. John McCain is far from being a spectacular Christian conservative candidate. I also have doubts about his ability to beat other unsavory candidates: namely, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

That is why I continue, with renewed vigor, my efforts to nominate and elect Governor Mike Huckabee President of the United States.

Join with me!

What Will We Have in 2008 and Beyond?

2008-02-03T15:44:00.000-05:00

I just couldn't help myself. I just had to send another e-mail to West Virginia for Life, Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, and Delaware Right to Life.

WVL: wvforlife@labs.net
MCCL: information@mccl.org
DRTL: prolifedelaware@juno.com

I told myself that I wasn't going to contact you again. I guess I told myself wrong. I just had to send you one more e-mail, asking you to endorse Mike Huckabee for President.

So much is at stake in this election. Will we have a President who supports and fights for a Human Life Amendment? Not unless Mike Huckabee is elected. He is the only candidate supporting such an amendment.

Will we have a President who stands for the dignity and sanctity of all life, even that which is conceived by such an egregious crime as rape? Not if we elect Mitt Romney. His website clearly states that he supports abortions in cases of rape and incest.

Will he have a President who understands that the abortion issue is about protecting life and not just returning power to the states? Not if John McCain is elected. He believes that "constitutional balance would be restored" if we simply overturned Roe v. Wade.

Will we have a President who has consistenly landed on the side of life? Only if we elect Mike Huckabee. Mitt Romney used to be pro-choice. John McCain has been wishy-washy on the topic of embryonic stem-cell research, and his campaign finance reform has hindered pro-life activism.

There is one day left for your endorsement to exert an influence. I ask you a final time: please make the strongest stand for life possible. Endorse the most complete, most consistent, most passionate pro-life candidate in the race: Mike Huckabee.

Despite what the pundits say, he can win. But he could use your help.

Thank you for your time.

Join in!

2008-02-02T19:12:00.001-05:00

If you want to be a part of the effort mentioned in the previous post, here are the e-mail addresses harvested so far. Just copy'em into your "To" section and write your letter. (Note: Many of the addresses will result in you receiving an "undeliverable" notice. Don't worry; that's the nature of the beast.)

Alabama:

woogiedvc@nti.net, chiefapd1@aol.com, smsc@cybrtyme.com, cpardue@multipro.com, itento@hotmail.com, rmcclendon@mindspring.com, hrpwebmaster@earthlink.net, gary@rfirstclassarmstraining.org, foprange@bellsouth.net, wmguns@coqui.net, tutobermudez@gmail.com, ipsc40edge@aol.com, gunlogic@charter.net, bullseye2700@charter.net, jorgehersel@fs.fed.us, whiteoakhunts@mindspring.com, gsc@ustconline.net, hksmith@centurytel.net, BOYETTE@HIWAAY.NET, bryanpoe2@yahoo.com, EDIE39740@AOL.COM, guns@mchsi.com, glenatboothill@aol.com, info@sandkguns.com, Support@auctionarms.com, info@acssguns.com, ashley@eamichael.com, mcquick21@msn.com, Photodag@bellsouth.net, techstaff@tacarms.com, Bill38M@aol.com

Alaska:

acg@mtaonline.net, info@alaskabestpawn.com, kasuun@yahoo.com, hirschel@wildak.net, budandsally@ak.net, rdw1@ptlalaska.net, rocky@ptialaska.net, grouse@mtaonline.net, Scopeshield@alaska.net, arcticshooter45@yahoo.com, inker@ptialaska.net, sales@discoveryoptics.com, kenco@eagle.ptialaska.net, broker@mtaonline.net, gunrunners@gci.net, sales@outdoorhq.com, wildwestguns@alaska.net, agca-2@agca.net, sales@7-62precision.com

Arizona:

a737@earthlink.net, Sales@arizona-sportsman.com, markschrader@msn.com, lash@legendaryguns.com, azgunruner@aol.com, deserteagleguns@yahoo.com, mark.hanish@scottsdalegunclub.com, ed@bearmountain.us, sacw@extremezone.com, beararms57@aol.com, donssportshop@msn.com, BullsEye@GilbertGunworks.com, bgibson@sportsmanswarehouse.com, charlie@reigins.guns, info@outdoorsman.com, sales@azgunsetc.net, aztac@cox.net, dlarue@runbox.com, dlangworthy@arizonatactical.com, stcshooter@hotmail.com, highcountryguns@yahoo.com, bargainbill@juno.com, fredcronk@cabelas.com, kensenft@qwest.net, president@asrpa.com, secretary@asrpa.com, membership@asrpa.com, NorthernDivision@asrpa.com, southerndivision@asrpa.com, dcassity@nrahq.org, ccw@asrpa.com, awf@azwildlife.org, editor@azod.com, arizona@rifleshooting.com, Assnmgmt1@cox.net, chairman@muledeer.org, president@muledeer.org, AzTrappers@hughes.net, bda30@cox.net, webmaster@hoalarizona.org, jgl@cyberspeedway.net, Mike@CertifiedTraining.net, adft@azccw.com, Info@Gunshine.com, georgedean@tactrain.net, NHathaway@cox.net, Webmaster@TNTDefensive.net, Info@ArmedPersonalDefense.com, paul@desertskyone.com, phxccw@yahoo.com, gunnietop@cox.net, KenSenft@Qwest.net, Dave@threatsolutions.com, info@maricopatactical.com, training@caswells.com, training@caswells.com, dustybunch@yahoo.com, info@douglasgunclub.org, chuckwillis@theriver.com, mohavesportsmanclub@wowmail.com, acoyote@ctaz.com, doubleadobe@theriver.com, caswellstraining@attglobal.net, Fourpeaks@aol.com, rangemaster@uswest.com, proshop@gunsite.com, gunsmithy@gunsite.com, coordinator@gunsite.com, gunsite@gunsite.com, ed@gunsite.com, trsc@theriver.com, azcjas@aol.com, info@benavery.com, pinemt1125@aol.com, htliffick@aol.com, dmaddock28@aol.com, molloybobby@aol.com, gsampson@cableone.net, neene@cableone.net, timkulow@yahoo.com, info@scottsdalegunclub.com, sportsmansclub@yahoo.com, rbat7777@netzero.net, marksmanpistol@attglobal.net, dave.daughtry@parks.pima.gov, info@tucsonrifleclub.org, super71@cableone.net, bordercollie124@peoplepc.com, survey@trgc.org, tts@theriver.com, dian@wickenburgsportsmensclub.com, sjandros@msn.com, aerialpixel@earthlink.net

Colorado:

info@familyshootingcenter.com, kiowacreeksc@aol.com, mtblanca@fone.net, coloradoclays@earthlink.net, crci@comcast.net, rfhanson3374@aol.com, IWLA@elpasotel.net, whistlingpinesgc@mac.com, michele@fone.net, besc1@cmn.net, maryskoglund@yahoo.com, firingline@cherrycreekgunclub.org, dkraft@denverareacouncil.com, pawnee411@aol.com, aquamotion@msn.com, info@coloradopros.com, office@blgc.org, simillion@westelk.com, whacEmason@usa.net, busskop@rmi.net, jgallagher@k2ftc.com, grnmtnrange@gmail.com, sanjuan1@rmi.net, valhalla@elkmountainresort.com, melchertr@juno.com, PWSA_Secretary_2006@msn.com, webmaster@riflesportsmensclub.org, mhogue@3qc.net, goldengunclub@yahoo.com, sweetiepiearts@comcast.net, carterlakegunclub@excite.com, mtblanca@fone.net, coloradoclays@earthlink.net, rfhanson3374@aol.com, michele@fone.net, whacemason@usa.net, aquamotion@msn.com, simillion@westelk.com, jgallagher@k2ftc.com, sanjuan1@rmi.net, webmaster@blgc.org, barto@sopris.net, mhogue@3qc.net, boonesboro@qwest.net, info@firinglineonline.com, tim@pawneesports.com, gunsportcolorado@earthlink.net, azone@prolynx.com, polday@hotmail.com, cbrgunsmithing@gmail.com, earlhick@msn.com, Info@IronRidgeGuns.com, Sales@IronRidgeGuns.com, cajbrand@msn.com, InsightShootingSystemsInc@attbi.com, riflemaker@earthlink.net, information@coloradoshooting.org

Georgia:

sales@bigwoodsgoods.com, info@highlandoutfittersllc.com, bullseyemarksman@bellsouth.net, dbaker@wi.rr.com, rick-ha@hartcom.net, sales@southeasternguncompany.com, info@wwtguns.com, bsci@bellsouth.net, thad12@rabun.net, adairsvillesportingrange@msn.com, jlong@barnsleyinn.com, stevesgun@aol.com, president@coastalgagunclub.com, info@brushcreekfarm.net, socrange@nraonline.com, joiner@isoa.net, bclay@southrivergunclub.com, bullseyemarksman@bellsouth.net, bearclaw@stc.net, jbdrfullautoctr@bellsouth.net, webmaster@mggoa.com, richmountaintraders@yahoo.com, admin@autreysarmory.com, josephdgriffin@aol.com, brpc@mindspring.com, bigredoakplant@bellsouth.net, info@griffinsteelmatch.com, jlang@spalding.k12.ga.us, uge2255@uga.edu, theworks04@msn.com, bcdeagle@mindspring.com, info@wwtguns.com, hrplantation@jeffersonenergy.com, rudytheraven@yahoo.com, Learntoshoot@hotmail.com, Campshooters@aol.com, ccolvin@frontiernet.net, AG-ABC@worldnet.att.net, justiceinc@plantlel.net, justiceinc@plantlel.net, LRSA@datasys.net, targetshooting@hotmail.com, james@space.com

Oklahoma:

ldrennan@wilnetl.com, mgm368@Brightok.net, bwhittington@badlandstactical.net, silverleafdeb@aol.com, thughes@hintonet.net, mmhfin@010.net, gvandesteeg@msn.com, wolf@mmind.net, info@muskogeegunclub.com, hhrange@aol.com, ContactUs@HHGunRange.com, okwild@prodigy.net, PCRIFLE@poncacity.net, boardofdirectors@sssportsman.com, tcshootingsports@gmail.com, info@tulsafirearms.com, cooperwma@pldi.net, cstone@usshootingacademy.com, bfitzgerald@usshootingacademy.com, ussainfo@usshootingacademy.com, ak47stalker@yahoo.com, wjg721@aol.com, mgm368@Brightok.net, B-CMatch@sirinet.net, silverleafdeb@aol.com, thughes@hintonet.net, mmhfin@010.net, wolf@mmind.net, info@muskogeegunclub.com, hhrange@aol.com, cooperwma@pldi.net, NickH@HHGunRange.com, billsoutdoor@peakonline.com, info@sportsworldtulsa.com, mike@wellingtonfirearms.com, medlockfirearms@sbcglobal.net, amy@tulsascenic.org, billssportinggoods@tulsacoxmail.n, southforktraders@terraworld.net, historyshop@yahoo.com, ozarkcopshop@sbcglobal.net, chadpope@juno.com, ozarkarmory@sbcglobal.net, fperry@webtv.net, beverlywssok@hotmail.com, krystal@outdoor-outfitters.com, sales@outdooramericastore.com

Tennessee:

mail@franklingunshop.com, bcacorp@nxs.net, c3006@adelphia.net, u2topbrass@aol.com, brightonarms3030@bellsouth.net, pioneer_outdoor_sports@yahoo.com, oldsouth@ecsis.net, bub5616@yahoo.com, hillshardware@charterinternet.com, mail@coalcreekarmory.com, billbernstein@bellsouth.net, guns@hero-gear.com, info@violavalleygunshop.com, jwr6655@aol.com, les.brown@state.tn.us, daryl.ratjtzak@state.tn.us, lynne_sonner@kettlefootgunclub.org, bryank471@yahoo.com, earpwya@bellsouth.net, questions@rattlesnakeridge.org, mcgc1@bellsouth.net, matchmasters@juno.com, cpardue@multipro.com, terryssports@wmconnect.com, waystone1@hotmail.com, bate1183@bellsouth.net, m.serio@comcast.net, jr.vandam@cognex.com, mike@owlhollowgunclub.org, mstrano511tactical@verizon.net, harry@shdconsulting.net, dianne@shdconsulting.net, don@shdconsulting.net, guntrainers@yahoo.com, info@nssf.org, gunsandleather@comcast.net, roseb@blomand.net, rhawk@tnsportsfoundation.org, information@pointblankindoorrange.com, SecurityChief@graykennelssecurity.com, Sales@coalcreekarmory.com, findit@guncraft.com, John.SevierRange@state.tn.us, danwh@bellsouth.net, Durbinsanders@aol.com, info@rangeusa.com, givenst@rangemaster.com, info@ontargetindoorshooting.com, training@bellsouth.net, info@springhousetn.com, heritage@tellico.net, 22guns@vol.com, info@sevierindoorrange.com, questions@rattlesnakeridge.org, info@therangeinc.com, media@blackwaterusa.com, sierra@sierrabullets.com

Important, Documented Second Amendment Information About the Republican Presidential Candidates

2008-02-02T19:03:00.000-05:00

Over at Huck's Army, a soldier started an effort to "harvest" e-mail addresses of gun ranges, dealerships, etc., in states that vote on Super Tuesday, so that multiple people could send out e-mails detailing Huckabee's stance and record on the Second Amendment in contrast to Romney's and McCain's.

Here's the e-mail I wrote:

As someone with an invested interest in the unadulterated preservation of the Second Amendment, you have probably noticed that the issue of the right to keep and bear arms has been hoisted onto the backburner in this primary and caucus season. Until Governor Mike Huckabee interrogated Governor Mitt Romney on the issue in one of the recent Republican presidential debates, I can only remember one other time when the topic was last mentioned in a debate, and that question was phrased to ask the candidates if any of them personally owned a gun.

Maybe this is not such a coincidence. Maybe it’s a concerted effort by two of the leading contenders for the Republican nomination: John McCain and Mitt Romney. Neither the Senator from Arizona nor the former governor of Massachusetts can tout impressive records on defending your right to keep and bear arms. In reality, the case is quite to the contrary.

Although he tap-dances around the issue now, Mitt Romney’s record shows that he supported the Brady Bill and a ban on so-called "assault" weapons. In fact, Romney signed into legislation a permanent ban on assault weapons. Moreover, when running for governor of Massachusetts, he said that he supported and promised not to "chip away" at Massachusetts’ strict gun restrictions. In one debate, he admitted that he does not even personally own a gun (He uses one of his son’s.). That’s certainly not a sin; but it’s not too reassuring coupled with his shabby record. Then, there’s the gaffe when Mitt called himself a "lifelong hunter," though his campaign later admitted that he may have only ever been hunting twice or so. He joined the NRA and became a "lifelong member" in 2006. Interestingly enough, that’s about the time he would have been considering running for President--as a "conservative."

John McCain also attempts to portray himself as a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, yet he and his "maverick" mentality have wandered into anti-gun territory multiple times, so much so that the Gun Owners of America gave him an "F" grade in 2004 and 2006 and called his record "Abysmal, wretched, and pathetic." GOA goes on to say that McCain supported "initiatives to severely regulate gun shows and register gun buyers"; he advocated laws that would require you to keep your guns locked up at home; and he introduced a compromise bill of gun show regulations.

Furthermore, the restrictions McCain helped put on political free speech affect Second Amendment activists.

In stark contrast stands Mike Huckabee, a consistent, adamant supporter of your constitutional right to keep and bear arms. He doesn’t have to hide any Second Amendment skeletons in his campaign closet, because he has none. The Gun Owners of America says that Huckabee "has proven himself to be a steadfast friend to gun owners and the Second Amendment."

Who are you going to support? Will you vote for a candidate who talks the talk and walks the walk...today...but hasn’t in the past? Will you vote for a candidate who’s been misleading? Or will you vote for the candidate who has persistently and consistently been a proponent and a protector of your right to protect yourself?

The mainstream media is trying to convince everyone that Mike Huckabee has no chance of winning. Don't believe them! He's running very well in many of the February 5th states. Stand up for principle! Stand up for the Second Amendment!

Thank you for your time.

p.s. Here is the documentation for the information in this e-mail:

Mike Huckabee on the Second Amendment: http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=18

Gun Owners of America on Mike Huckabee: http://gunowners.org/pres08/huckabee.htm

Gun Owners of America on John McCain: http://gunowners.org/pres08/mccain.htm

Gun Owners Rating of John McCain: http://www.gunowners.org/mccaintb.htm

Gun Owners: "Abysmal, wretched, and pathetic" comment: http://www.gunowners.org/mccaintb.htm

Gun Owners of America on Mitt Romney: http://gunowners.org/pres08/romney.htm

Romney’s "chip away" comment: http://gunowners.org/pres08/romney.htm

Romney expressing support of Massachusetts laws: http://gunowners.org/pres08/romney.htm

Romney’s "lifelong hunting": http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3013787

Romney’s "lifetime" NRA membership (see last line of story): http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3013787http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=when+did+Romney+join+the+NRA&btnG=Google+Search

Romney’s lack of actual gun ownership: http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/01/14/romney_retreats_on_gun_control/?page=2

Romney signs permanent assault weapons ban: http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/01/14/romney_retreats_on_gun_control/?page=2http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Romney+sign+assault+weapon+ban&btnG=Google+Search

One Last Plea for Your Endorsement

2008-02-02T19:01:00.000-05:00

I sent this e-mail to West Virginians for Life (and Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, with slight tweaking), making a final plea for them to endorse Mike Huckabee for President.

WVFL: wvforlife@labs.net
MCCL: information@mccl.org

Dear West Virginians for Life,

I am writing to make one last plea that you endorse Mike Huckabee for President. I know this is a last ditch effort, but it is so important to me that you make the strongest stand for life possible.

Despite the propaganda that the media and other candidates are promulgating, Mike Huckabee is not "done" or "running for Vice President." However, he does need to perform well in many states on "Super Tuesday," including West Virginia. You can definitely help him in that department.

Huckabee is the only candidate who is consistently, completely, and passionately pro-life. John McCain isn't; he doesn't support a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution, and he has been wishy-washy on embryonic stem-cell research. Mitt Romney isn't either; he used to be pro-choice; he doesn't think the country is ready to ban abortion (an apathetic, conciliatory attitude); and he is in favor of rape and incest exceptions.

Huckabee carries no such pro-life baggage.

Please, while there is still time for your endorsement to have an impact on the election, endorse Mike Huckabee for President. Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, and Tennessee pro-life groups already have. Add West Virginia for Life to the list!

Thanks for your time,

Another Letter to MCCL

2008-02-01T17:21:00.000-05:00

If you can't tell, I really want Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life to endorse Mike Huckabee. This is my third letter to them. Their e-mail address is information@mccl.org.

Dear Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life,

I know that this is my third time writing to you in the past few days, but I can't stress enough the importance of this matter. In this primary and caucus season, we have the wonderful opportunity to nominate someone who is not only pro-life, but passionately so.

John McCain may have a pro-life voting record, but he has certainly not shown himself to be a zealous activist for the cause of life. Moreover, he does not support a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution, and he has been shaky on the issue of embryonic stem-cell research.

Mitt Romney, on the other hand, has only declared himself to be pro-life in the past few years. Furthermore, he has stated that he doesn't think the country is ready to end abortion, demonstrating himself as unfit material for leadership of the pro-life movement. After all, who would fight for what they don't think is yet possible?

Both of these candidates seem to have taken the pro-life position as a token part of their platform. Mike Huckabee is the only one who has made it a prioritized concern. Having always been fully and fervently pro-life, he supports a Human Life Amendment, and opposes embryonic stem-cell research. He doesn't temper his position because of probability or practicality; he stands upon principle.

Earlier today, I heard a national news anchor refer to the Republican race as a "two-man race." The media will try to manipulate election coverage in such a way as to eliminate Huckabee's chances of ascertaining the nomination. That is why it is so important that you give your endorsement to Huckabee. The pundits will not prop him up like the others, but you, I, and countless others can show the country and the world what we think.

Huckabee is competing for first place in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and West Virginia. With the endorsement of Alaska Right to Life, he may even do well in that state, and he could have strong showings in several other states holding their primaries and caucuses on February 5th. With your endorsement, he has a shot at performing very well in Minnesota, as well. With the Republican party split between three viable candidates, just about anything can happen. But pro-lifers everywhere need to make their stand so that the best thing for the pro-life movement happens. If the best thing doesn't transpire, we can always vote for the next-best thing in November. Should we really be concerning ourselves with the lesser of two evils when a "greater good" is still available? I think not.

Time is running out for your endorsement to have the desired impact. Please endorse Mike Huckabee for President with all possible haste.

Thank you for your time.

...

p.s. Alabama Citizens for Life is expected to announce their endorsement of Mike Huckabee for President today. That will make them the eighth state to do so. Please become a part of the growing pro-life momentum for Huckabee. Become the ninth state!

Loose Change for Real Change

2008-01-31T17:11:00.000-05:00

Check out my first real fundraising effort for Mike Huckabee. I designed it so that just about anyone can be a part!

Loose Change for Real Change

I need your help, in more ways than one, to reach the goal by Super Tuesday.

Reply to MCCL

2008-01-31T16:58:00.000-05:00

Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life are recommending Republican caucus-goers to vote "uncommitted pro-Life." I wrote the following reply to them, urging them to reconsider. Their e-mail address is information@mccl.org.

Dear Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life,

I understand that you recommend "Republican Caucus attendees identify themselves as uncommitted pro-Life." I am writing to respectfully but emphatically ask you to reconsider your position.

You reason that your position is the best for voting "later on." But I would propose that pro-Lifers should cross the "later on" bridge when we get to it. Voting pro-life is easy in the general election; the contrast between the Democratic and Republican nominees is usually stark. Now that Giulani has dropped out of the race, that looks to be the case again in 2008

However, all the Republican candidates are not equally pro-Life, and I can see no harm that would be inflicted upon the Minnesota pro-Life movement by the endorsement of the best.

The unfortunate situation of this election cycle is that we are not inundated with fully, fervently, and consistently pro-Life choices. John McCain opposes a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution, believing that "Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states." In addition, he has positioned the issue of life anywhere but at the forefront of his campaign, making it a secondary concern, at best.

The same goes for Mitt Romney. He has said that he would like to end abortion, but that he doesn't think that the country is ready. Regardless of the validity of that statement, it is not one of a leader of pro-Life action. It is saturated with apathy and resignation. Furthermore, his site states that he is in favor of abortion exceptions, an unsettling position--especially for a man who has only recently become pro-Life.

In drastic contrast, Mike Huckabee is and always has been completely, consistently, and committedly pro-Life. The abortion issue is what originally got him involved in politics, and he passed pro-Life legislation while governor of Arkansas. He supports a Human Life Amendment and has made Life a flagship issue of his campaign.

By refusing to endorse the best candidate for the pro-Life cause, you are implicitly hurting the pro-Life movement. If Huckabee is not nominated by the Republican party, pro-Lifers will naturally coalesce around the best candidate remaining. But if you do not endorse Huckabee, and he fails to garner the nomination, your lack of initiative will likely be one of the reasons. Seven state organizations have already endorsed Huckabee. I hope you will become the eighth.

Thank you for your time.

The Florida Primary: Good News and Bad News

2008-01-30T16:15:00.000-05:00

Florida Republican Primary Results:

John McCain: 36%
Mitt Romney: 31%
Rudy Giulani: 15%
Mike Huckabee: 13%
Ron Paul: 4%

~You want the good news or the bad news first? Well, since you probably already know what the bad news is, I'll go ahead and divulge it in detail now. Huckabee's performance in Florida was very disappointing. I was hoping that Huckabee could place third, above Rudy Giulani, but, alas, it turns out that Giulani's three-week full-time blitz on Florida did count for something (though, from his point of view, not nearly enough). Now, Huckabee's shot at ascertaining the Republican nomination is getting longer and longer.

~However, he is competing in a handful of Super Tuesday states, including but not limited to Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Missouri, Oklahoma, and West Virginia. His severe lack of momentum and money will make it difficult for him to turn that "competitiveness" into actual victories, but he still has a chance, at least.

~ What he really needs are two things: first of all, he needs to come out throwing some elbows in tonight's debate (CNN, 8 p.m.). I know that's not his style, but he can't sit back any longer. CNN doesn't convince anybody of being "fair and balanced" or "objective." They will focus on Romney and McCain, trying to let them dominate the debate. Huckabee has to jump into the action whenever he gets the chance, contrasting himself to the other candidates.

~The second thing Huckabee needs is for Romney and McCain to battle it out with each other, especially in states where Huckabee has no chance anyhow. If that happens, Huckabee might be able to cash in some of the southern, more conservative states.

~As for the good news mentioned earlier, Rudy Giulani is expected to drop out of the race today. That is very refreshing news. He is one of the two main reasons I decided to start this effort (the other is Mitt Romney), and I take pleasure in the fact that he will not be the Republican nominee.
Giulani's dismal failure seems to show three things:
a.) Early national polls declaring Rudy the "frontrunner" gauged name recognition, and nothing else.
b.) Momentum is important.
c.) The Republican party still isn't willing to nominate someone quite as liberal as Rudy Giulani.

~Giulani will probably endorse John McCain, which, really, is no surprise. Besides being good friends, they're both strong on defense, weak on marriage, weak on abortion, weak on the Second Amendment, and awful on immigration. The problem is, Giulani's endorsement could provide a significant boost for McCain. States like New Jersey could become McCain blowouts.

~On the Democratic side, John Edwards dropped out of the race. Although he was a "NOT supportable" candidate, his defeat really isn't a victory for this site. The Democrats can only nominate one candidate, and whoever that is, he/she will be unsupportable.

Letter to Alabama Citizens for Life

2008-01-29T22:32:00.000-05:00

I just sent this e-mail to Alabama Citizens for Life. Huckabee could really use their endorsement. Their e-mail address is info@al4life.org.

Dear Alabama Citizens for Life,

I am writing to urge you to endorse Mike Huckabee for President of the United States. I know that you are already planning on making a decision this week, but I wanted to encourage you to support the strongest, most complete, most consistent pro-life candidate in the field.

Much of the pro-life movement is finally beginning to coalesce around Huckabee, at last coming to the conclusion which I, and many others, have long known to be the correct one. State pro-life organizations in Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Missouri, Montana, and Tennessee have thrown their support behind Governor Huckabee. Although the National Right to Life PAC did not officially endorse a specific candidate, it sent out a statement saying "that Governor Huckabee has taken the strongest pro-life position on all of the life issues of any of the remaining candidates for president." California and Oklahoma right-to-life organizations have also made positive statements about Huckabee's record.

Mike Huckabee is the only candidate who is actively supporting a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution. John McCain does not support such an amendment, believing that we should allow the states to decide for themselves by overturning Roe v. Wade. Although I do believe that is an appropriate first step, I believe it is only that--a first step. For me at least, the pro-life movement isn't about just returning power to the states: it's about protecting all life.

Mitt Romney would like to end abortion, but he doesn't believe the country is ready. That is an apathetic, conciliatory attitude which would serve as a copout if he were to become president. We need a president with passion, not passivity, for life. Furthermore, as can clearly be seen on his website, Romney is in favor of rape and incest exceptions. Now, I understand that we must have compassion for victims of such horrendous atrocities. But we must not respond to such tragedies by permitting another tragedy--the destruction of a human life. Moreover, this type of exception-laden position is not reassuring in light of Romney's pro-choice past.

Mike Huckabee originally got involved in politics because of the abortion issue. He fought for and passed pro-life legislation while governor of Arkansas. He has been a staunch, unyielding, unfailing proponent of life.

If you are concerned about his chances of winning the nomination, let me assure you that he certainly can, but he could greatly use your assistance. Alabama is one of the states which he desperately needs to win on Super Tuesday in order to pull off the improbable feat of garnering the Republican nomination.

Thank you for your time, and I hope to hear of your endorsement of Mike Huckabee with all possible haste.

Desiring Passion, Not Passivity, for Life

2008-01-26T12:32:00.000-05:00

This is a fifth letter that I wrote to another of Florida's newspapers. I'm done with Florida now, and will be moving on to other states. If you think that your local paper needs to see one of these, let me know.

Word Count: 240

Some of the candidates in the Republican presidential race seem to take a passive position against abortion. Rudy Giulani “personally opposes” abortions and promises to try to reduce the amount of them, but he does not support a ban. Formerly pro-choice Mitt Romney would like to end abortion, but he doesn’t think the country is ready. That is a built-in copout before his first day as president. Not only that, but he supports rape and incest exceptions, somehow believing that we should kill an unborn baby for the sins of the biological father. John McCain thinks Roe v. Wade is a “flawed” decision, but he would be content to simply overturn it, giving the power back to the states and allowing them to conversely either ban or encourage abortions.
None of those positions are strong enough for people like me. I want a candidate with a passion for life, not passivity. I want a candidate who fully comprehends the importance of fighting for the right of every person—in every state, in the womb or out, and conceived in any fashion—to have a chance at the “pursuit of happiness.” That candidate is Mike Huckabee. He is and always has been completely and fervently pro-life. The abortion issue is what originally got him involved in politics, and he worked to pass pro-life legislation while governor of Arkansas. He supports a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution, and I support him.

Send Thank You Notes

2008-01-25T20:13:00.000-05:00

Please take the time to send a thank you note to these pro-life people/organizations who have made the strongest stand possible for life by endorsing Mike Huckabee.

Alaska, Karen Vosburgh, info@alaskarighttolife.com , prolife@mtaonline.net
Arizona, David Roney, PAC@ArizonaRightToLife.org
Georgia, Bryan Lash, questions@grtl.org
Missouri, Patricia Skain, http://missourilife.org (website submission form)
Montana, Liana Karlin, life@rtlmt.org

No other state right-to-life organization that I know of is endorsing Huckabee yet. Please, at least e-mail your state affiliate, requesting that they endorse the only truly, consistently pro-life candidate who can win.

Fair Tax and Trade

2008-01-25T15:28:00.000-05:00

If you know of any newspaper, in any state voting on February 5th, that you think I should send this to, please let me know.

Length: 224 words

As John McCain, Rudy Giulani, and Mitt Romney stump and stomp and stamp about the economy, two things you will rarely—if ever—hear mentioned are fair trade and the Fair Tax. They’ll mention lower corporate taxes, but they won't mention that, as long as corporate taxes exist, they will serve as both a natural tariff on our products and an invisible tax on our consumers. Corporations don’t really pay taxes, instead passing them on through higher prices.
They’ll mention tax breaks and lower income taxes, but they won't mention that, as long as income taxes exist, productivity will be stifled and peak economic efficiency won’t be reached.

They’ll mention improving trade and America’s global competitiveness while reducing our trade deficit, but they won’t mention that, as long as other countries charge high duties on our exports while we charge none on their imports, we will always struggle to compete.

Endorsed by Duncan Hunter, who has championed the idea of fair, “mirror trade,” Mike Huckabee is the only leading presidential candidate proposing both fair trade and the Fair Tax, which would eliminate income and corporate taxes, replacing them with a national consumption tax. It would be an uphill battle to install such policies in corrupt Washington, but, since we’re already talking about “change” this election, why don’t we talk about big change—real change?

Social Conservatism Still Holds Precedence

2008-01-24T20:20:00.000-05:00

Here's yet another letter I wrote to a Florida newspaper. If you think I should send it to another newspaper, in any state, let me know.

Length: 243 words

Subject: Social Conservatism Still Holds Precedence

This letter is to affirm that social conservatism still holds a great deal of precedence with at least one voter. Apparently, most of the contenders for the Republican nomination don’t realize that people like me exist. Romney is trying to magnify the importance of the economy, which goes well with his business acumen. McCain is trying to spin everything to foreign policy and defense, which goes well with his military and defense background. Giulani tries to tie a lot of things back to 9/11 and his leadership experience from it.

This trend of emphasizing one issue is understandable, since each candidate has his own particular strength. But don’t forget that all these candidates are also hiding conservative weaknesses in the social realm.

Giulani is in favor of choice, civil unions, and locally-determined gun restrictions. Romney has shoddy track records on abortion and gun control. McCain does not support a Human Life Amendment or a Marriage Amendment, and his maverick nature has brought him on the anti-gun side of the fence more than once.

Mike Huckabee is the only one who has been a constant, complete conservative on all of these issues. He supports a Human Life Amendment, a Marriage Amendment, and the Second Amendment. Nothing in his record contradicts his stances on these issues. He is the only one who appears to have consistently believed in what I do as passionately as I do. Therefore, he is the only one I will support.

Lost in the Shuffle...the Second Amendment

2008-01-24T19:35:00.000-05:00

This is another letter I sent to a Florida newspaper. It is about the Republican candidates' records on gun control. If you know of a newspaper, in any state, that you think I should send this to, let me know, by comment or e-mail.

Length: 242 words

Lost in the campaign shuffle of the economy, the war in Iraq, and the war on terror, we find an issue most fundamental: the right to keep and bear arms. All the candidates on the Republican side pay lip service to the Second Amendment, but, as the saying goes, actions speak louder than words. Furthermore, past statements speak louder than election year rhetoric. Alas, most of the candidates in the Republican field don’t have a consistent pattern to trust.

Giulani supports locally-determined gun restrictions, as if some citizens don’t deserve the same constitutional liberties that others do. Apparently a utilitarian, he defends his actions in New York City, claiming that they reduced crime. But many, especially conservatives, would reject the logic of such a cause-effect argument and its use as an excuse to restrict a constitutional right.

Romney’s record shows that he used to support the Brady law and a ban on at least some semi-automatic weapons. Furthermore, he promised not to “chip away” at Massachusetts’ strict gun laws when he was running for governor. McCain’s maverick mentality led him into anti-gun territory—and not just once.

In contrast to those three, Mike Huckabee is the only candidate who has unfailingly and adamantly protected our right to defend ourselves in a free and unhindered manner.

I beseech all conservatives, while all the candidates promise to protect the country and your wallets, remember who has also consistently protected your right to protect yourself.

Straight Talk About John McCain on Immigration

2008-01-24T18:24:00.000-05:00

I wrote this letter to "The Ledger," a Florida newspaper. Do NOT copy this letter to them. If you know of another newspaper, in any state, that would be a good place to send this, comment on this post or e-mail me with the newspaper's name/website/e-mail address. THANKS!

John McCain dubs his campaign the “Straight Talk Express.” So, I thought I’d take some time to give my own straight talk about John McCain on immigration.

McCain says that his immigration bill failed because people do not trust the government. Here’s some straight talk: his immigration bill failed because, in the eyes of us conservatives, it was a terrible plan; it was amnesty, no matter how McCain tries to parse definitions. McCain says he learned that Americans want the border secured first. Here's more straight talk: yes, we do want the borders secured, but that’s not the only problem we had with his plan. We don’t want amnesty, and he is still promising us that. He says that, in his plan where most illegals get to stay in America from day one, "they'd have to get at the back of the line" for citizenship. Here's some straight talk: when you're already in the Chocolate Factory, who cares about the Golden Ticket? McCain says that he would deport the two million criminal illegals immediately. Here's some straight talk: those two million criminals would be amazingly difficult to round up. A terrorist, drug dealer, murderer, or rapist is not going to come forward, ask for a card, and say, “By the way, I’m one of the bad ones.” McCain says he wouldn’t deport the wife, here illegally, of a soldier in Iraq. Here’s some straight talk: rather than exploiting that situation to justify compromising the law, why not ask how they managed to get married in the first place?

As a conservative, I must say that, for a straight talker, McCain sure thinks and speaks crookedly on this issue. Mike Huckabee has proposed a 9-point Secure the Border Plan, endorsed by Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman; he has signed a “No Amnesty Pledge”; he’s been endorsed by immigration hawk and former presidential candidate Duncan Hunter; and he has my support.

I Apologize...

2008-01-23T17:31:00.000-05:00

...if I have not responded to any of your comments. As you can see, I've been really busy lately.

Letter to Florida Right to Life

2008-01-23T16:53:00.000-05:00

On FRTL's website, you can find the National Right to Life Committee's endorsement of Fred Thompson listed in the sidebar. Since Fred Thompson has dropped out of the race, I, and some others, have decided to write e-mails to FRTL, requesting that they endorse Mike Huckabee. Please join the effort. With Florida's primary looming less than a week away, an announcement of such an endorsement could provide a significant boost for Huckabee.

FRTL's e-mail address: frtl@embarqmail.com

Here's the e-mail I sent, which you can model if you so desire:

Subject: Urgent Request for You to Endorse Mike Huckabee for President

To whom it may concern:

On your website, I noticed that you list the NRLC's endorsement of former presidential candidate Fred Thompson. Since Senator Thompson has exited the race, I am writing to urge you to give your endorsement to Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas.

Governor Huckabee is and always has been staunchly pro-life. He is the most consistently, fully, and fervently pro-life candidate in the race. He even states on his site that abortion is the issue which originally got him involved in politics. He believes that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. He is opposed to research on embryonic stem cells. He supports a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and he passed pro-life legislation while governor of Arkansas.

In addition, whereas other so-called "second-tier" candidates have either bowed out or shown no substantial presence in the polls, Governor Huckabee has quieted qualms about his electability. Finishing first in Iowa, third in New Hampshire, third in Michigan, and a very close second in South Carolina, he has clearly proven to be one of the main contenders for the Republican nomination. As far as future primaries go, he is either leading or competitive in the polls of numerous states which vote on Super Tuesday.

With the constraints of a modest budget and a lack of inherent name recognition, Governor Huckabee would benefit tremendously from your support. You could provide a significant boost in momentum with the announcement of your endorsement.

Down in the Sunshine State, you've seen, through the story of Tim Tebow, the importance of giving every life a chance. As one of the most important primaries in the nation is about to take place in your state, please take the strongest stand for life that you can. Endorse Mike Huckabee.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
[your name]

Letter to North Dakota Right to Life

2008-01-23T16:38:00.000-05:00

A fellow soldier in Huck's army sent an e-mail to NDRL, asking them to support Mike Huckabee for President. He received a response saying that they had decided not to endorse a candidate until the two main parties had selected their nominees. I wrote the following e-mail in response, beseeching them to reconsider. I urge you to send a similar e-mail to them. Their address is: ndrl@btinet.net

To whom it may concern:

I understand that you have decided not to endorse a presidential candidate until the two main parties have selected their nominees. I am writing to implore you to reconsider your decision. Please allow me to explain:

Unlike other election cycles, this primary season has presented pro-lifers with an urgent and immediate challenge. On the Democratic side, all the leading candidates are pro-choice, as usual. However, on the Republican side, we are faced with an uncommon predicament. Namely, all of the candidates are not pro-life in a complete and unadulterated manner.

Rudy Giulani, former mayor of New York City, is personally opposed to abortion but believes in a woman's right to choose. He claims that he would appoint strict constructionist judges, but he does not support a ban on abortion.

Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts, was pro-choice until the past few years. He takes a somewhat apathetic stance towards the issue, believing that the country is not ready to rid itself of abortion. In addition, he remains in favor of rape and incest exceptions.

John McCain believes that overturning Roe v. Wade would be sufficient. On his website, he states, "Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states." This stance is not the one of someone who recognizes the overwhelming importance of ending abortion.

In contrast to Giulani, Romney, and McCain, Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, is and has always been fully and staunchly pro-life. He believes that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. He is opposed to research on embryonic stem cells. He supports a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and he passed pro-life legislation while governor of Arkansas. Without a doubt, he is the most consistently and fervently pro-life candidate in the field of frontrunners.

Furthermore, whereas other so-called "second-tier" candidates have either bowed out or shown no substantial presence in the polls, Governor Huckabee has quieted qualms about his electability. Finishing first in Iowa, third in New Hampshire, third in Michigan, and a very close second in South Carolina, he has clearly proven to be one of the main contenders for the Republican nomination. As far as future primaries go, he is either leading or competitive in the polls of numerous states which vote on Super Tuesday.

With the constraints of a modest budget and a lack of inherent name recognition, Governor Huckabee would benefit greatly from your support.

Thank you for your time. I sincerely hope that, reconsidering your policy of giving no endorsements until the general election, you will endorse Mike Huckabee for President of the United States.

Sincerely,
[your name]

Duncan Hunter endorses Mike Huckabee for President

2008-01-23T16:27:00.000-05:00

Former presidential candidate and U.S. Representative from California, Duncan Hunter announced his endorsement of Mike Huckabee today.

Hunter dropped out of the race after two poor showings in Nevada and South Carolina on January 19th. His poll numbers and actual vote percentages consistently hovered around--usually below--two percent, but he is respected as a true, complete, consistent conservative. Although any supporters who follow his lead may be few, Hunter's influence is greater in that he may convince some fence-sitters to come to Huckabee.

To read more about Duncan Hunter and his recently ended bid for the presidency, click here.

To read more about his endorsement of Huckabee, click here.

Letter to National Right to Life

2008-01-22T17:50:00.000-05:00

Fred Thompson ended his campaign for the presidency today. National Right to Life had endorsed him. This is an e-mail I just sent to them, urging them to endorse Mike Huckabee in Thompson's stead. Please send an e-mail similar to this one to NRLC, with your name at the end of it. Also, contact your family and friends, asking them to do the same. This is a very simple action to take, but one that is urgent and could be very important. Read the letter to see why.

Subject: Writing to Request That You Endorse Governor Mike Huckabee for President

To whom it may concern:

Now that Former Senator Fred Thompson, whom NRLC endorsed for President of the United States, has ended his campaign, I am writing to urge you to officially endorse Mike Huckabee, Former Governor of Arkansas, in Thompson's stead.

Governor Huckabee is and always has been staunchly pro-life. He is the most consistently and fervently pro-life candidate in the race. He believes Roe v. Wade should be overturned. He is opposed to research on embryonic stem cells. He supports a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and he passed pro-life legislation while governor of Arkansas.

In addition, he has calmed fears about his electability. Finishing first in Iowa, third in New Hampshire, third in Michigan, and a very close second in South Carolina, he has clearly proven to be one of the main contenders for the Republican nomination. Furthermore, he is either leading or competitive in the polls of numerous states which vote on Super Tuesday.

With the constraints of a modest budget and a lack of inherent name recognition, Governor Huckabee would benefit tremendously from your support. Moreover, as Super Tuesday approaches quickly, when over twenty states will choose their candidates on the same day, Governor Huckabee needs as much national media coverage as possible. You could greatly assist in this area with an announcement of your endorsement.

Thank you for your time. I sincerely hope that you will choose to endorse Governor Mike Huckabee for President of the United States.

Ranking Their "Positions": Personal Commitments and Morality

2008-01-21T18:05:00.002-05:00

Some may claim that we shouldn't get into presidential candidates' lives, that by doing so we are getting too personal, or using too fine a microscope. And I would concede that a candidate's personal moral history should not be a deciding factor. After all, everyone has the propensity to make mistakes--to fall into sin--and, sometimes, those slip-ups can lead to something as drastic and destructive as divorce. Besides that, when dealing with a public figure trying to retain some privacy in his or her life, we can have a difficult time figuring how much each spouse is at fault in a separation.

On top of that, if a person appears genuinely repentant, we, as Christians, have to consider forgiving and forgetting.

Having laid that groundwork, I do still feel that a candidate's personal life can be a contributing factor to the selection process. What can we learn from a presidential aspirant's past, and why does it matter? I feel like we can potentially gain some insight, though not concretely, into the following areas:

a) Commitment: What does it mean to him when he says, "I do; I will; for better, for worse; for richer, for poorer; 'til death do us part"?

b.) Selflessness/Desire to Do the Will of God: When a person spurns his wife, scoffs at God, and renigs on a lifetime contract, narcissism is much more likely prevalent in that person's life than selflessness and dedication to God.

c) Fear of God: What does it mean to him when he hears "In the sight of God" and "holy matrimony"?

d) Honesty: Someone who lies in order to carry on an affair (if that is indeed the case) will, in all likelihood, lie in order to accomplish other forms of personal gratification, whatever they may be.

e) Responsibility as a Public Figure: How seriously does an adulterating/fornicating politician take his/her role as a role model, a representative of the people, a prominent image of his constituents to the nation and to the world. Can he be trusted with the closely scrutinized position of the presidency?

As a final thought, before we begin to look at how the presidential candidates match up, remember that, just because we should forgive someone, doesn't mean we have to trust them with one of--if not--the most powerful and influential jobs in the world.

1. Ron Paul: (Wikipedia)

I am bequeathing the honorary Number One position upon Ron Paul in honor of the fact that he has been married to his one and only wife Carol for almost 51 years. Together, they have five children and seventeen grandchildren! (Interestingly enough, Wikipedia reports that they have eighteen grandchildren and one great grandchild, but the article it references as support confirms the statistics on Paul's campaign site.)

Paul is a solid supporter of traditional marriage, but he opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment because of his constitutional interpretation of federal jurisdiction.

2(t). Mike Huckabee: (Wikipedia)

Huckabee, a former Baptist minister, has lived up to his responsibility as a role model, at least when it comes to the duration and amount of marriages of which he has been a part. That is, he's been married once, for 33 years, to woman named Janet. They have three (now full-grown) children.

He helped institute "Covenant Marriages" in Arkansas, renewing his vows to his wife, and he is and always has been a strong supporter of traditional marriage, promising to push a federal marriage amendment as President.

On a side note, he had a great soundbite in one of the recent debates, when he said that marriage is not about each partner giving fifty percent, but about each partner giving one hundred percent.

2(t). Duncan Hunter: (*No longer running: dropped out 1/19/08; endorsed Huckabee)

Duncan Hunter, one of the forgotten men in this year's presidential race, has been a much better example in marriage than several of his colleagues who are far ahead of him in the polls. He has only been married once, is still married, and has been married to his wife Lynne for over 33 years. They have two sons, two daughters-in-law, and three grandchildren.

Hunter is a staunch advocate of traditional marriage, and, like Huckabee, would attempt to pass a marriage amendment as President.

2(t). Mitt Romney: (Wikipedia)

Married for over 38 years, Romney and his only wife Ann have had five sons together, who have in turn given them eleven grandchildren.
All appears fine on that front, with his children campaigning with him, but we must remember that Romney is a Mormon. His wife Ann converted to Mormonism before they married, and they no doubt raised their children in a Mormon tradition, which means that Romney is responsible for leading (or at least trying to lead) a woman and five children down the wrong path. However, I have decided not to downgrade Mitt Romney in this particular post for that reason.

2(t). Alan Keyes: (Wikipedia)

Keyes, a stalwart when it comes to the defense of traditional marriage and strong families, defines himself as a "dedicated family man." He and his wife Jocelyn have three children.

One of his daughters, Maya, has come out as a Lesbian. There were reports that, when Alan found out about this, he "threw her out of the house, stopped talking to her, and refused to pay for her college." According to Wikipedia, Maya confirmed these reports, but Alan denied them. "He asserted that he never cut her off and never would because it would be 'wrong in the eyes of God.' He also said he would not be coerced into 'approving of that which destroys the soul' of his daughter. He contended that he must 'stand for the truth [Jesus Christ] represents' even if it breaks his heart."

I'm not sure what to make of all that. If his defense is true, he's right. But the conflicting reports are disturbing. As for raising a child that turns out to be a lesbian, I don't know if you can blame Keyes. I certainly wouldn't be so bold as to shamelessly blame my parents if I were to fall into sin. However, this situation begs us to look more closely at Keyes devout Catholicism. Does he have a true relationship with Jesus Christ, which he could therefore pass on to his children, rather than some type of legalism or ritualism? But, again, this could happen to devout Protestant Christians' children, too.

***After originally ranking Keyes 5th, I have decided to move him up with the others. There is simply no justification for downgrading him.

6. Fred Thompson: (Wikipedia) (No longer running; dropped out 1/22/08)

Fred Thompson has been divorced once and married twice. He married his first wife when he was only seventeen years old, proceeding to have three children (two surviving) with her. After remaining married for over twenty-five years, they divorced. Thereafter, Thompson was romantically linked to several women, eventually marrying his current wife, Jeri, in 2002. They have two very young children.

7. John McCain: (Wikipedia)

Divorced once and married twice, just like Thompson, McCain is placed under Thompson because of the way his marital relationships transpired. Initially, John married a girl named Carol in 1965. She had already been married, but she divorced. McCain adopted her two children, and they had a child of their own.

In 1979, while still married to Carol, McCain fell in love with a new, much younger (17 years) girl. He acted accordingly, filing for and attaining a divorce. He's now been married to Cindy for over 27 years, having three children.

According to Wikipedia, McCain's children would not attend his second wedding, understandably, although they have since reconciled with him and Cindy. McCain has four grandchildren.

8. Rudy Giulani: (Wikipedia)

Giulani has been divorced twice and married three times. He originally married his second cousin. Within ten years, he and his wife agreed to a trial separation, their marriage struggling. Seven years later, Giulani met someone new and thereafter filed for a legal separation. He began living with his second wife-to-be, attained a civil divorce, and received an annulment from the Catholic church on the basis of the fact that Giulani supposedly thought his first wife was his third cousin, not his second. When he (and the Catholic church) "discovered" the truth, the marriage was deemed to be illegitimate.

A while later, Giulani married his live-in. The marriage became strained, however, and in 1997, word started leaking out that Giulani was having an affair, which was indeed the case.

But that affair was not the one in which his current wife, Judith, was a participant. That came soon after, as Giulani carried on a secret relationship with her, while he was still married. The relationship became less and less secretive over time, as Giulani was seen publicly with Judith, stopped wearing his wedding ring, and had police and security details take him to have secret rendezvouses with his partner in adultery. Judith had also been divorced twice.

When Giulani announced his intentions to separate from his second wife, his wife did not about his plans before he made them public. Heavy criticism and a nasty divorce settlement ensued.

Eventually, however, he did divorce his second wife and marry his third.

Rudy has two children by his second wife, and one stepchild with Judy. It has been reported within the last year that Giulani is estranged from his two biological children.

Rankings (after five issues)[with Hunter]:
Hunter: 1.8
Keyes: 1.8
Huckabee: 2.2
Paul: 3.6
Romney: 4.2
Thompson: 4.2
McCain: 6.4
Giulani: 7.6

Rankings (after five issues)[without Hunter]:
Keyes: 1.8
Huckabee: 2
Paul: 3
Thompson: 3.4
Romney: 3.6
McCain: 5.4
Giulani: 6.6

You Need Not Sit Idly By As You Sit In Front of Your Computer

2008-01-21T17:50:00.000-05:00

If you are interested in getting involved in the effort to elect Mike Huckabee, check out some of the things I have been doing lately:

*Enlisted in Huck's Army, made my first posts on the forum, and am planning on contacting my state's grassroots director.

**Signed up to be one of the Huckabeez, posted an endorsement on that site, and got my blog linked from it.

***Became a Huckabee Ranger, set my fundraising goal at the $100 minimum, placed a widget on this site, and left my endorsement on the site.

Other sites that you might be interested in checking out are Huckabee Momentum and I Would Vote for Huckabee. I haven't taken part in those efforts yet, but you might want to.

Support Huckabee Through WWCP

2008-01-20T21:55:00.000-05:00

Supporter

My Goal:

$100.00

.................................................................................................................................................

Although the field of Christian candidates with legitimate potentiality is thinning, I'm still not willing to make the monumental declaration that Mike Huckabee is the only one. However, if I were to try to be the best financial steward in the process of contributing to a campaign, I would donate to Mike Huckabee. That is why I am asking you this: If this site has helped to increase your support for Mike Huckabee, and if you want to contribute to his campaign, please use the widget above. (You can also find it in the sidebar.) By doing that, you will affirm the impact of this site.

Again, I repeat, I am still not claiming that Huckabee is the only option. But, as you know, I think he is the best option, as of now.

Time to Get Back in the Saddle

2008-01-20T16:10:00.000-05:00

South Carolina Republican Primary Results

McCain: 33%
Huckabee: 30%
Thompson: 16%
Romney: 15%
Paul: 4%
Giulani: 2%
Hunter: <1%

~I'm not going to patronize you by denying that last night's results were crushing. I really thought Huckabee would win; and, more importantly, he really needed to win. However, we must recognize that this is not "game over," but "game on." Any cowboy will tell you that, when you fall out of the saddle, the best thing to do is to jump right back in it. It may seem easiest just to stay on the ground, but, in the long run, it's the worst thing you can do.
The Florida Republican primary is a deadheat right now. Giulani has been there, and Romney and McCain storm into the Sunshine State with some victorious momentum. Because of this, they should be sparring with each other for the next week. Hopefully, Huckabee can sneak up and pull off the biggest upset/comeback yet of this campaign season.

~If you are a Floridian for Huckabee, you can pick up the blog banner positioned at the top of this post here.

~Even after focusing all his attention on the Palmetto State, Fred Thompson simply could not ascend in the polls enough to accomplish a very improbable South Carolina triumph. His campaign could soon be drawing to a close.
On a side note , though, he did slow the mo' of Mitt Romney.

~Could Giulani really have expected that his strategy would leave him with such measly support in the early primary states? We'll soon see if his strategy works, and thereby if anyone will every try it again.

Nevada Republican Caucus Results:

Mitt Romney: 51%
Ron Paul: 13%
John McCain: 13%
Mike Huckabee: 8%
Fred Thompson: 8%
Rudy Giulani: 4%
Duncan Hunter: 2%

~Mitt Romney was the only big-name candidate who put significant time (and a good chunk of his seemingly endless supply of money) into Nevada. Along with that, Nevada has a substantial Mormon population. This huge win for him means little more than delegates, although, admittedly, those are starting to look more and more important.

~Ron Paul finally found a state where he could place (1st, 2nd, or 3rd). That may encourage him to run as a third-party candidate, assuming, of course, that he doesn't get the nod as the Republican nominee.

~Duncan Hunter dropped out after two more poor showings in Nevada and South Carolina. I wrote a post about him that you can read by clicking here.

~Ditto same comment about Giulani as above.

All these results call for are more prayer and more action. Please join with me in this effort.

Duncan Hunter Drops Out; Thompson Next?

2008-01-20T15:15:00.000-05:00

The field of solidly Christian candidates for President continues to thin and could thin even more before the Florida primaries on January 29th.

Duncan Hunter dropped out of the race after posting a lackluster 2% in the Nevada caucuses yesterday. Percentage-wise, that was the best Hunter had done in any of the early states (Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada, South Carolina), save for Wyoming, where one delegate vote equaled 8%. But that best wasn't nearly good enough, especially considering how much time and effort Hunter concentrated into that state. Obviously, his strategy wasn't nearly as effective as Ron Paul's; Paul finished second in the Silver State.

Hunter faced an uphill battle from the start. Like every other so-called "second-tier" candidate, he suffered from a lack of name-recognition. A Rudy, Fred, or Mitt, he is not. However, unlike Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul, Hunter failed to climb the ladder of publicity and ignite significant excitement about his candidacy. Huckabee has energized conservative Christians and social conservatives in general. Paul has energized...well, somebody. I'm not quite sure what his demographic is, but he's inspired it nonetheless.

Found wanting in the area of popularity, Hunter could have benefited from a notch of executive experience in his belt. Although he has worked in the realms of defense and foreign policy, Hunter has only ever been a U.S. Representative. He can't tout "running a government," being a governor or mayor, like Giulani, Huckabee, and Romney can.

The longer the campaign season went, the less likely it appeared Hunter would have a shot. Television debates stopped inviting him and journalists rarely uttered his name. This lowered visibility perhaps made him lesser known today than he was two or three months ago. On top of that, all the voters which would have gravitated towards him began to coalesce around other candidates with better perceived chances of winning.

Potentially the most completely, consistently, and fervently conservative candidate in the race, Hunter would shore up weaknesses on just about any Republican ticket. By choosing not to endorse a candidate, Hunter has left the door open to be anyone's vice presidential candidate.

With Hunter out, this site is down to only one currently supportable candidate. Temporarily, I've decided to leave it this way. However, I am considering Fred Thompson as a back-up plan.

That, however, may be short-lived. Thompson put all his eggs in South Carolina's basket, and South Carolina only gave him a bronze medal. He could be pulling out soon, as well.

So, conservative Christians experienced a triple whammy yesterday: Duncan Hunter ending his campaign, Fred Thompson perhaps having his campaign ended for him (practically speaking), and Mike Huckabee being handed a painful defeat in South Carolina to John McCain.

But we must not stay down on ourselves. We must get up to fight another day.

**Click here to read Duncan Hunter's official statement.

***I'll have updated rankings in my next "Ranking Their Positions" post.

Idealists, You Are!

2008-01-18T16:05:00.000-05:00

Wow, thank you to all who participated in the latest WWCP poll. With 65 votes, it topped the previous high of 49 votes, which were cast in this site's very first poll. Clearly, WWCP is going in the right direction, popularity-wise.

I mistakenly thought I had chosen a very polarizing, divisive question in this poll: "In a President, what type of conservatism is most important to you?"

I figured that we'd either see a split between economic, foreign policy, and social conservatives, or see a general gravitation to social conservatism, since many of my blog readers may feel most strongly about that area. Instead, by a wide margin, you chose the utopian idea of a totally conservative President.

67% (44 votes) of you said that "A President has to have ALL for me to support him." That's a higher percentage than the 65% which said Hillary Clinton would make the worst President.

Next in line was "Defense Conservatism (Foreign Policy/Immigration)" at a distant second place. It brought in 12% (8 votes) of the votes.

After that, a pack of options runs together, each choice carrying only a few votes. 6% (4 votes) voted for "Social Conservatism," and another 6% voted for "Theological Conservatism." 3% (2 votes) cast their ballot with "Economic Conservatism (free markets)", while another 3% (2 votes) wasn't conservative ("I'm NOT a conservative, so none!")

Rounding out the poll was "Fiscal Conservatism" with one lonely percentile (1 vote).

A few notes:

1.) I ambiguously worded the most popular answer choice: "A President has to have ALL for me to support him." "Support" is a relative term. Wholehearted support, or support period?

2.) A lot of types of conservatism can be defined relatively, as well. There are degrees of conservatism.

3.) I can see that I can't give you all a cop-out if I want to see your feelings when forced to make a decision.

Please vote in the new poll.

WWCP Dis-endorses John McCain (for Primary Season)

2008-01-17T16:35:00.000-05:00

Everytime I decide to dis-endorse a candidate, it pains me greatly. It bothers me not only because I may like the candidate personally, but also because I realize the potential implications of being against a candidate when others are even worse. Both of those factors are sources of discomfort in this decision. However, I cannot sit idly by and watch John continue to surge in the polls.

On the first five issues I have examined--sanctity of marriage, sanctity of marriage, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Obscenity/Pornography, and Personal Commitment/Morality (soon to be posted)--John McCain has ranked 6.4 collectively, behind Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee, Alan Keyes, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney (also dis-endorsed), and Fred Thompson, respectively. That poor of a ranking doesn't even reflect his position on immigration and the fiasco of McCain-Feingold.

By this dis-endorsement, I am not claiming that McCain is not a true Christian, although one is made to wonder; rather, I am simply saying that he does not appear to be one of the better options as a true Christian President.

If he turns out to be the Republican nominee, I may be able to support him, unlike Rudy Giulani and Mitt Romney. However, for the foreseeable future of the primary season, I am dis-endorsing John McCain.

Screeching to a Halt in the Motor City State...

2008-01-17T16:05:00.000-05:00

Republican Michigan Primary Results:

Mitt Romney: 39%
John McCain: 30%
Mike Huckabee: 16%
Ron Paul: 6%
Fred Thompson: 4%
Rudy Giulani: 3%
Duncan Hunter: <1%

~Needless to say, the results in Michigan were not what Hucka-supporters were hoping for. However, his performance is nothing to scoff at, when you consider that he received more votes than Paul, Thompson, Giuliani, and Hunter combined. Facing two candidates with deep roots in Michigan and one with deep pockets, Huckabee managed to pull off a solid third-place finish.

~Out of nowhere, South Carolina has become the primary for Joe Namath moments. Reacting to both of their significant defeats, Mike Huckabee and John McCain are promising/vowing/predicting/guaranteeing their own victories on Saturday. Both of them desperately need a triumph in the Palmetto State to propel them into Florida and Super Tuesday.

~Ron Paul continues to embarrass, for lack of a better word, Fred Thompson and Rudy Giulani. Paul beat Giulani in Iowa and trailed Thompson by only three points. He beat Thompson in New Hampshire, and trailed Giulani by only one point. He won't defeat Thompson in South Carolina, but he has a chance at taking down Giulani there.
I'm not going to accept the idea that Paul's only competing with Giulani because Giulani isn't spending time in the early primary states. Voters aren't mindless. They don't just vote because of the quantity of time that they've seen a candidate; in fact, people tire of candidates sometimes. They care more about quality--message--than quantity. And the simple fact is that Giulani's message on a littany of issues doesn't sit well with most conservatives.
Admittedly, Paul's foreign policy may be misguided, but his positions on social issues and limited government are much closer to conservative norms than Rudy's.

~Why is Duncan Hunter still in the race? Consider this: if the Republican party ends up with a brokered convention, they can pick anybody. Hunter is perhaps the most complete, consistent conservative in the race. Could they select him? Certainly, electability/name recognition could be a problem, but you never know.

~A surprising number of people voted "Uncommitted" on the Republican side. Understandably, many Democrats voted "Uncommitted" since Hillary Clinton was the only big-name candidate on the ballot, due to Obama and Edwards pulling their names off the ballot after a delegate conflict. In this case, a vote "Uncommitted" was like a vote for Obama or Edwards.
But it makes no sense for Republicans to vote "Uncommitted," unless all those voters were Alan Keyes supporters. Keyes was apparently not on the ballot.

Pre-Ignition in Mich'gan

2008-01-14T20:00:00.000-05:00

The proverbial key is soon to turn in the Motor City, and here's my pre-race analysis:

~ The polls aren't looking that good for Mike Huckabee in Michigan. It appears that McCain is receiving a momentous boost in support resulting from New Hampshire, and that, coupled with Mitt Romney's Michigan roots and stacks of money, looks like it could culminate in a disappointing third-place showing for Huckabee.

~It's hard to say now who Huckabee supporters should be rooting to win the Wolverine State, besides Huckabee himself, of course. Practically speaking, a loss for Romney could hammer the final nail in the coffin of his presidential hopes. However, the resultant McCain victory would likely launch McCain into a big win in South Carolina and, thereafter, another one in Florida. Although McCain isn't officially "not supported" on this site, I would not want to see him win the nomination (Read my "Ranking Their Positions" series on abortion, the sanctity of marriage, and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms; also, research his other positions)

~That being said, we saw in New Hampshire, on the Democratic side, that polls can't be trusted. Although there are numerous explanations for how the polls could have predicted so wrongly, one possibility is that the polls somehow reflected a false "momentum" that Obama supposedly carried out of Iowa. If that is true, and the polls have overblown McCain's momentum out of New Hampshire, Huckabee could still have a shot.

~By some quirk of the election process, Hillary Clinton is the only candidate on the Democratic Michigan ballot, and, in Michigan, Democrats, as well as independents, can choose to vote in the Republican primary. It's difficult to determine how that will affect the race. Huckabee's "populist" message may appeal to Democrats, and his social conservatism may appeal to some Michigan Catholics who may vote Democratically based upon their economic philosophies (I don't know with certainty that any of those exist, but I suppose that they do.). On the other hand, social moderates and liberals who are for a strong defense may lean towards Rudy Giulani or John McCain. In addition, with no competition from Barack Obama, John McCain has a clear shot at most of Michigan's independents.
So, the summation of that paragraph is that we will just have to wait and see.

~As I pointed out in a previous post, Fred Thompson has stated that he is "making his stand" in South Carolina. After a debate performance that was perceived by some (not me) as brilliant, Thompson looks like he is in decent shape. However, Michigan polls suggest that he will bring up the rear of all the candidates still invited to debates (Giulani, Huckabee, McCain, Paul, Romney, Thompson). Whereas McCain, Romney, or Huckabee could get a monumental kick in the pants coming into South Carolina after Michigan, Thompson won't.

~ Rudy Giulani will once again be an "also-ran," set to only come in ahead of Thompson. His performance in South Carolina could be even worse. I've got to give Rudy credit: for his own good or ill, he's making presidential electoral history with this strategy of putting all his eggs in the basket of Florida and some of the socially moderate Super Tuesday states.

~ Giulani's strategy has proven the lunacy of early national polls. Just days ago, he was maintaining his status as the Republican "national frontrunner." Now, he's down to third, even though the results so far were all accounted for in his plans.

Please pray, as always, for God's will to be done tomorrow in Michigan.

Article VI of the Constitution

2008-01-13T16:10:00.000-05:00

...The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, Shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States...
--from Article VI of the Constitution of the United States of America

During this election cycle, I've heard and seen some people invoke Article VI of the Constitution, as if by doing so they are striking down people like myself with a fatal condemnation. But I would propose that Article VI is just one more reason why we need to elect a Christian President.

What do I mean by that? Well, it's quite simple, really. If we do not elect a Christian President, the Constitution is not going to fix our error. The law will not save us from our mistake. If we choose a non-Christian, we will get our just desserts. The Constitution is designed so that no candidate will be prevented, by a precept of law (literally a "Test"), from attaining political office, presumably after he or she has already been elected by the people. The only test to be given is by the people, when they cast their ballots.

The reality is, the Constitution doesn't begin to decree to the citizenry on what bases we are permitted to embrace or shun a candidate. In fact, it would be a violation of the First Amendment for it to do so. If my faith tells me to cast my vote a certain way, I am allowed to act accordingly.

Consider what the naysayers, claiming constitutional superiority, really are implying when they proclaim that we can't "discriminate" against Romney because of his Mormonism. They are, in effect, saying, "You can vote against Romney because you dislike his ideology, record, wealth, speaking style, hair, fashion, campaign theme song, or the weird feeling you get when you see him, but you can't vote against him because of his religion." That's nonsense! Religion is the foundation upon which all else is built! If nothing else, one's religion installs oneself as god, or the State as god.

In all legality, I could vote against Barack Obama (which I will) merely because of the color of his skin (which, fortunately, happens to not be one of my reasons). That rationale would be despicable, deplorable, disgusting, diabolical, and just about any other negative adjective starting with "d," but that does not make it unlawful. Anyone can freely attempt to take that same tact about the rationality of considering faith in selecting a candidate to support, but no one can honestly make the argument that it is a case of constitutionality.

Post-Primary Postulations

2008-01-09T19:25:00.000-05:00

New Hampshire Republican Primary Results:

John McCain: 37%
Mitt Romney: 32 %
Mike Huckabee: 11%
Rudy Giulani: 9%
Ron Paul: 8%
Fred Thompson: 1%
Duncan Hunter: <1%
Alan Keyes: <1%

~No major miracle (a total victory) or minor miracle (second place) occurred for Huckabee last night. Yet, his third-place finish, ahead of Rudy Giulani, was still a solid one. He now has moved onto campaigning in Michigan and South Carolina, possessing a good shot at winning both of those states.

~Ironically, Huckabee's third-place finish will likely be viewed more positively than Romney's second-place performance. If he's not careful, Romney will be characterized as the "rich bridesmaid," who just can't buy a husband despite all her riches. Unless, of course, you want to classify Wyoming as a suitable "husband." It's not suitably sufficient for a legitimate presidential candidate--I'll tell you that much.

~The predictions I made after the Iowa Caucus are largely contingent upon the boost McCain gets as he rockets out of New Hampshire. He's currently polling third in Michigan behind Romney and Huckabee, a distant second in South Carolina to Huckabee, and fourth in Florida.

~Thompson came close to flat-lining. Today, as per my request (sort of), he said that he's "making his stand" in South Carolina. According to the Real Clear Politics Average, Fred is a whopping 23.3 points behind Huckabee, 10.7 behind McCain, and 7 behind Romney. Thompson is tied with Giulani at 9 percentage points.
It doesn't seem like such a wise decision for Thompson to pull a General Custer against such overwhelming odds. But, even with South Carolina appearing to be the equivalent of a 2-3 offsuit hand (to use a Texas Hold'Em analogy), it's his best opportunity to seriously compete in a state before February 5th (Super Tuesday). Although he's not in much worse shape in Michigan, Nevada, or Florida, Thompson's southern, folksy appeal is less advantageous in those states than it is in South Carolina, and the media will probably cover the latter more heavily anyway.

~In the most Libertarian state in Union, with a boatload of "Free Staters" and the motto "Live Free or Die," Ron Paul pulled off a rather ordinary performance. If he can't score better than fifth here, then where?

~In my aforementioned predictions, I failed to account for Nevada. There hasn't been any polling there since early December, so it's hard to tell what's happening there.

As John Edwards would say, there's two down. Forty-eight to go.

Interesting Read...

2008-01-09T19:21:00.000-05:00

This is an interesting article about the British reaction to our electoral spectacle. It also compares our system to England's. I found it very intriguing...And it made me glad to be an American.

Pre-Primary Ponderings

2008-01-07T21:10:00.000-05:00

The "first-in-the-nation" primaries are about to begin in New Hampshire, and here's what I'm thinking about:

~Multiple analysts have suggested that Mike Huckabee might--just might--pass Mitt Romney for second place in New Hampshire (behind a soaring John McCain), even though the polls don't even hint at such a possibility. One suggested that, since Huckabee is bringing out the young vote, the pollsters might not be reaching them.
If that scenario did transpire, it would dramatically increase Huckabee's already significant momentum, and it might just end--in all practicality--Mitt Romney's hopes at the nomination.

~It's more likely, however, that Huckabee will place a solid third, ahead of a stumbling Rudy Giulani. Although this type of finish wouldn't provide the boost that a silver or gold would, I think it would retain Huckabee's current momentum.

~It looks like Fred Thompson is going to place sixth. He's already admitted that they didn't really try in New Hampshire, basically professing contentment and resignation in the wake of a decisive defeat. Where's his campaign going? I personally like the guy--and most of his positions--but I want to see him put up a fight somewhere, or throw in the towel. Don't prolong the inevitable.

~Ron Paul will probably rank fifth. That's not too bad, by his standards, but, with New Hampshire being such an independent, libertarian state, the Libertarian Republican candidate has to be hoping for a better performance than the polls project. Otherwise, where does he plan to do better?

Please keep praying.

Post-Caucus Thoughts

2008-01-04T17:00:00.000-05:00

Iowa Republican Caucus Results:

Mike Huckabee: 34%
Mitt Romney: 25%
Fred Thompson: 13%
John McCain: 13%
Ron Paul: 10%
Rudy Giulani: 4%
Duncan Hunter: 1%
Alan Keyes: <1%

Now that Mike Huckabee has handily won the Iowa caucus, I can tell you why I think Iowa was so important.

My predictions:

The momentum from this victory will likely catapult Mike Huckabee ahead of Rudy Giulani into 3rd place in New Hampshire's primary, which takes place January 8th. The Real Clear Politics Average places Giulani just half a point ahead of Huckabee, 10% to 9.5%.

John McCain will likely pull away from Mitt Romney for first place. Then...

Romney, reeling from two debilitating blows in Iowa and New Hampshire, will waver in Michigan, where the primary takes place in 11 days. Currently, Romney leads Huckabee there by only 1 point.

With increasing momentum from three impressive performances, Huckabee will benefit from strong evangelical support in South Carolina (January 19). As of now, he leads Romney there by an average of 6.5%.

Then, with three wins and a victory over Giulani in New Hampshire, Huckabee will overtake Giulani in Florida (1/29), where Mike currently trails by only 2 percentage points, according to Real Clear Politics.

By this point, both Romney and Giulani will be in a bad way, with no momentum, heading into Super-Duper Tuesday.

Admittedly, I'm no psychic, prophet, or political forecaster. After all, I projected 6 months ago that the general election would come down to Mike Gravel and Hugh Cort (JUST KIDDING!). But I feel that these are sincere, logical projections, although I may be overestimating the momentum factor, and I most certainly am not accounting for any unforeseen setbacks for Huckabee.

More thoughts:

~Fred Thompson essentially lengthened his campaign by the skin of his teeth, beating out John McCain for third place by the slimmest of margins. They both had approximately 13% of the vote. The question remains, though, where can Thompson win? His campaign seems to be riding on the hopes of a Huc-collapse. He's set to finish far in back of the rest of the pack (including Paul) in New Hampshire. Several polls have him at a feeble 2% in that state. South Carolina is where he is doing best in the pre-Super-Tuesday states, but, even there, he's presently slated to finish in fourth.

~John McCain's fourth-place finish could temper his recent surge, but Romney's second-place finish in Iowa should help McCain in New Hampshire.

~A fifth-place finish with 10% of the vote would not be good for most serious candidates, but it's good enough for Ron Paul. Considered a non-viable candidate by some because of his stance on foreign policy, Paul proved last night that he can get significant chunks of the voting public to join his so-called "Revolution." In all likelihood, that won't translate into the Republican nomination, but it's worth noting.

~On the Democratic side, Chris Dodd (<1%) and Joe Biden (1%) immediately withdrew themselves from the race when the results came in. On the Republican side, I don't know how much longer Duncan Hunter (1%) can hold out for a miracle. It will be a shame if and when he has to drop out.

~Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, and Alan Keyes might stay in the race just for the fun of it. Bill Richardson, newly established as the only viable "second-tier" candidate on the democratic side, still has something to play for.

~Although you wouldn't know it by watching the media coverage, Wyoming, the least-populated state in the Union, finishes up its Republican caucus process tomorrow. With no public polling done there and little attention from the candidates, no one knows who will win there. Will it even matter? We shall see.

We've only just begun, people. If you haven't yet, go ahead and buckle your seatbelts now. And don't stop praying!

Deep, Independent Thinkers, You Are!

2008-01-03T19:28:00.000-05:00

Thanks to everyone for participating in the third WWCP poll--a double edition.

Both parts of the poll pertained to celebrity and high-profile endorsements. The first asked, simply, how do they affect you?

As I suspected, they don't really affect you at all. Out of 30 total votes cast, a whopping 69% (21 votes) said that endorsements have absolutely no impact on them, with 46% (14 votes) saying, "They never affect me. I study the candidates independently and couldn't care less what 'big-name' people think." The other 23% (7 votes) clarified that endorsements don't affect who they support, but they "appreciate them because they can help my [their] candidate[s]."

29% (9 votes) said that endorsements do affect them. 3% (1 vote) pointed out that it depends on the endorser, and 13% (4 votes) further defined that position by stating that only "endorsers with credibility and credentials"--not celebrities--impact them. The remaining 13% (4 votes) noted that some endorsements make them less likely to support a candidate. Not one person said that endorsements "almost always affect" them--that they "put a lot of stock in a celebrity and high-profile endorsements.

The second part of the poll was very intriguing. In this part, I wanted to know people's specific reactions to particular endorsements. Here are the results:

10 people were less likely to support Obama because of Oprah's endorsement. 2 were more likely.

4 people were more likely to support Huckabee because of Chuck Norris' endorsement. 5 were less likely.

3 were more likely to support Mitt Romney after the National Review's endorsement. 8 were less likely.

1 was more likely to support Mike Huckabee after Jim Gilchrist's endorsement. 5 were less likely.

There were a total of 25 votes cast in the second part, yet the most reactions to any endorsement was twelve. How can this be? Well, 13 said that none of the endorsements they didn't check influence them one way or another. That still doesn't seem to be proportionate to the percentage which said, in the poll's first part, that endorsements has no impact on them. However, that seeming contradiction can be explained in two ways:

1) Different people voted in the different parts of the poll.
2) In the second part, you were recording your reactions--whether positive or negative--to an endorsement, rather than how they actually influence you.

Please vote in the new poll.

My "Lemonade Stands"

2008-01-02T16:30:00.000-05:00

I just opened two "Lemonade Stands," which I have nicknamed "For on the Campaign Trail 1" and "For on the Campaign Trail 2" , respectively. They are located in the sidebar for quick reference.

Stand 1 contains books and periodicals of interest. I do not, and cannot, recommend or endorse all the content found therein, but I did try to select products which you may very well find useful.

Stand 2 contains some of my favorite movies, including family, Christian, and action-adventure films. It also has some of my favorite music, ranging from contemporary Christian to epic soundtracks to Andrea Bocelli.

By purchasing products directly through the Lemonade links on this site, you thereby support this blog. Please take just a couple of minutes to scroll through my inventory of items. Don't shy away from clicking on an item for more information. Thank you in advance for any purchases you may make.

You can also make your own Lemonade stand.

Pre-Caucus Thoughts

2008-01-02T16:15:00.000-05:00

We've just about made it to the Iowa caucuses. The following is a collection of some campaign news sprinkled with my opining.

~The most recent Des Moines Register poll has Mike Huckabee leading Mitt Romney by six percentage points in Iowa, 32% to 26%. However, this poll was taken before what some consider Huckabee's "debacle," when he filmed a negative ad, then decided not to run it, but showed it to the media and thereby garnered it a lot of free air time. Some consider the move devious, while others consider it stupid.
Furthermore, the Real Clear Politics poll average suggests that the race is a dead heat, well within the margin of error, and Fox News correspondent Karl Cameron reported that some within the campaigns think that the race will be decided by less than a percentage point.

~Outspending Huckabee in Iowa 20-1, Romney, who is reportedly a great businessman, has to admit that Huckabee's campaign has been far more productive and efficient than his own. Or, Romney has to concede that boatloads of money can only buy so many votes. Maybe it's a little of both. He has spent over $6 million in Iowa.

~According to the latest Des Moines Register poll, Fred Thompson is dangerously close to losing fourth place to Ron Paul. Yes, I speak of the same Ron Paul who everybody either loves or wants to have committed. (Okay, so there are some who fall in between--like me.) If this unthinkable does occur, Thompson's bid for the presidency could be just about over. Even if he holds onto fourth place, he will be in bad shape. He just doesn't seem to have an "identity" to develop a voting bloc, and a fourth-place finish or worse can't be spun positively to supporters.
However, a third-place finish, ahead of a surging John McCain, would be a boost, and that is not entirely out out of the question.

~If Romney loses Iowa, that defeat would likely propel him to two more defeats: one in New Hampshire at the hands of John McCain and another in South Carolina. Those two losses would likely make him lose Michigan. Clearly, Iowa is exceedingly important for Romney, although much the same applies to Huckabee, who would likely lose the steam to win South Carolina and Michigan following a loss in Iowa.

It's time to be praying, people.

WWCP Linked from Duncan Hunter's Website

2007-12-30T15:26:00.000-05:00

Check it out here.

In other news, WWCP now has an official e-mail contact address: WeWantaChristianPresident@gmail.com

If you have questions or comments about any of my posts, please comment on the relevant one(s). But if you have more generic inquiries or would like to correspond privately by e-mail, feel free to e-mail me.

Guidance of the Spirit

2007-12-29T17:50:00.000-05:00

This is the third excerpt from a yet-to-be-posted article revealing the thought-processes behind this effort.

This is probably the most abstract and intangible point of all, but a substantial one nonetheless.

Jesus said that He would send a "Helper" (John 14:16)--the "Spirit of truth" (John 14:17)--who would "teach [us] all things" (John 14:26) and "guide [us] into all the truth." (John 16:13) What an amazing promise that is! Note that Jesus does not say that the Holy Spirit would guide us into some of the truth, or that He'd teach us some things. He won't just teach us "religous" things or guide us into "spiritual" truths. No! He'll teach us all things and guide us into all the truth.

Does this mean that every Christian should eventually know everything? Does it mean that all Christians should eventually know everything collectively? I don't think so--at least not on this side of eternity. But we should be climbing the mountain of truth and knowledge. It's not about reaching the pinnacle today, tomorrow, or in our lifetimes: it's about gaining altitude day-by-day. The Holy Spirit is our guide, and the Bible is our handbook. With our Bible in one hand, the Holy Spirit leads us by the other. The Spirit is the builder on the foundation of the Bible. He is the navigator with the map of God's Word.

I don't want to trespass upon my upcoming "Godly Wisdom" post, but I should allude to one of its key verses here. Paul states that in Christ "...are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." (Colossians 2:3) The Holy Spirit is the Key to Christ's treasure chest. He is the Treasure Hunter who can lead us to where "x marks the spot."

On a different note, I'm also reminded of times in the New Testament when Paul was "blocked" by the Holy Spirit from going to a certain area. Admittedly, we don't know exactly how the Holy Spirit accomplished that, but what I deduce from those instances is that the Holy Spirit can simply tell someone--who is in touch with Him--to do something or to not do something. He can even tell us what we ought to say (Luke 12:11-12).

Even so, I'm not going to deny that we don't want our President regularly relying on divine barriers and nudges. They don't always come, and they are sometimes confused with other things (indigestion) and even the other side (demonic influence/oppression). Having the Spirit "on your side" is definitely not an excuse to slack off in the areas of counsel, research, and analysis.

Nevertheless, when it comes down to discernment, intuition, a gut-feeling, a judgment call, a knee-jerk reaction, a split-second decision, a virtual coinflip, or a seemingly lose-lose situation, I'll take the President who's in fellowship with the Spirit over the one who's not every day of the week.

However, we must realize that the Holy Spirit doesn't guide only in this indefinable sense. He also guides through the Fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-24), which could be referred to as the "tools" of the Spirit. These virtues--love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control--are present in those "walking by the Spirit." (Galatians 5:25) They don't serve to function so much like the type of guidance which commands, "Go in this direction," but more like the type which instructs, "Take this approach."

Now, I must admit that I rarely live up to all of the unadulterated ideals of Paul's grocery list of spiritual produce. But we would not err to assume that the Christian should generally live up more fully to more of the fruits than a non-Christian. After all, the flesh has its own laundry list: "...immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these..." (Galatians 5:19-21) Not only that, the Christian should be progressively ascending to godliness, albeit with some stumbles here and there. "For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus." (Philippians 1:6) "And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect." (Romans 12:2) "Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance. And let endurance have its perfect result, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing." (James 1:2-4)

The fruits of the Spirit have very real applications in the life of the President. The following dissertation is as much a prayer for our President, whoever that may be, as it is a discourse on the effects of the Spirit. There is some overlap between the traits.

Goodness:
*That he'd strive to overcome evil with good, and not to return evil for evil (Romans 12:17, 21)
**That he'd fight the good fight (2 Timothy 4:7) with the proper motivation, doing all things heartily for the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:31; Colossians 3:23)
***That, for this reason, he'd be immune to corruption.

Faithfulness:
*Following the same train of thought, that he'd follow through with his commitments and stay true to his beliefs (Ephesians 4:14; Colossians 2:8) with the faithfulness of God
**That his word would be reliably sufficient (Matthew 5:37; James 5:12).

Kindness:
*That he'd extend his hand to our opponents at home and enemies abroad so as to convey that our steadfast convictions are founded upon common sense, morality, justice, and security--not spite, hatred, prejudice, vengeance, or selfishness....or partisanship
**That he'd truly fulfill the duties of his office by regarding others as more important than himself and accepting that he is a public servant (Philippians 2:3-4; 1 Corinthians 10:24)

Joy:
*That, though without naivety, he'd see the positive, working towards it rather than conceding the negative
**That he'd recognize God's sovereignty and omnipotence, remembering that Jesus has overcome the world (John 16:33) and that God works all things together for the good of those who love Him (Romans 8:28)
***That the joy of the Lord would be his strength (

Patience, Peace, and Self-Control:
*That he'd not make rash decisions from flights of panic or anger (Matthew 10:28; James 1:20), and that he'd not concern himself with saving his own skin (Philippians 2:3-4; 1 Corinthians 10:24),but that, with the peace that surpasses all understanding (Philippians 4:7), he would make cool-headed decisions with the proper perspective, setting his mind "on the things above" (Colossians 3:2) and dwelling on "whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute..." (Philippians 4:8)
**That he'd control his tongue, understanding the great power, for good or ill, which it possesses (James 3), especially when placed within the context of the President's bully pulpit

Gentleness and Love:
*That he'd speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15), using gracious words seasoned with salt (Colossians 4:6) and exhibiting a gentle spirit (Philippians 4:5)
**Knowing that a gentle answer turns away wrath (Proverbs 15:1), that he'd stand firm but not be standoffish;
***That his decisions would be based upon his love for God, his neighbors, and his enemies: not that he'd be soft or wimpy, but that he'd neither be bloodthirsty nor heartless
****That he'd be driven by a genuine love--a love that is both compassionate and tough, understanding that both are necessary
*****That he'd put himself in their shoes so as to better understand how to defeat their ideologies.

Although it's practically impossible to decipher just how tender a public figure like a political candidate is to the leading of the Spirit, and equally difficult to calculate the precise results of such leading, we cannot underestimate its importance. Therefore, we must attempt to eliminate all the obvious tares, so that we are more likely to choose a grain of wheat.

Christmas Message from WWCP

2007-12-24T12:45:00.000-05:00

The fact is, I might post something relevant to the election in the next two days. But another fact is that I probably will not. So I have decided to leave you with this non-political Christmas message. So, don't expect me to put universal healthcare or "bringing the troops home" under the tree for you (a la Hillary Clinton). In fact, I won't even be including any "floating crosses" (a la Mike Huckabee, allegedly).

During these days of presents and pie, family time and turkey time, freezing coldness and hot cocoa, sugary sweets and powdery snow, sappy songs and slap-happy songs, and all the other stuff that goes along with the "most wonderful time of the year," let us endeavor to glorify and praise God, just as Mary, Zacharias, the angels, the shepherds, and the Wise Men did, respectively:

“And Mary said: ‘My soul exalts the Lord…holy is His name…’” (Luke 1:46-55)

“And at once his mouth was opened and his tongue loosed, and he began to speak in praise of God.” (Luke 1:64)

“And suddenly there appeared with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying, ‘Glory to God in the highest…’” (Luke 2:13-14)

“The shepherds went back, glorifying and praising God for all that they had heard and seen, just as had been told them.” (Luke 2:20)

“After coming into the house they [the Wise Men] saw the Child with Mary His mother; and they fell to the ground and worshiped Him.” (Matthew 2:11)

To reflect upon what God has done and is going to do:

“And behold, even your relative Elizabeth has also conceived a son in her old age; and she who was called barren is now in her sixth month. For nothing will be impossible with God.” (Luke 1:36-37)

“…Mary treasured all these things, pondering them in her heart.” (Luke 2:19)

To rededicate and re-submit ourselves to God:

“And Mary said, ‘Behold, the bondslave of the Lord; may it be done to me according to your word.’” (Luke 1:38)

“And he [Zacharias] asked for a tablet and wrote as follows, ‘His name is John.’” (Luke 1:63)

To give ourselves more fully to Christ and to remember that, by giving to the least among us, we give to Him.

“After coming into the house they saw the Child with Mary His mother; and they fell to the ground and worshiped Him. Then, opening their treasures, they presented to Him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh." (Matthew 2:11)

"Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to me." (Matthew 26:40)

To find joy and peace in the meaning of the season:

“When they saw the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with great joy.” (Matthew 2:10)

“But the angel said to them, ‘Do not be afraid; for behold, I bring you good news of great joy which will be for all the people…” (Luke 2:10)

“…on earth peace among men with whom He is pleased.” (Luke 2:14)

To realize how blessed we are:

“And coming in, he said to her, ‘Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.’” (Luke 1:28)

“The angel said to her, ‘…you have found favor with God.” (Luke 1:30)

I realize that Mary was a special woman, but note what Jesus states later in His life.

“While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, ‘Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breast at which You nursed.’
“But He said, ‘On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.’” (Luke 11:27-28)

To let not our hearts be troubled, for Emmanuel, God is with Us:

“But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, ‘Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife…” (Matthew 1:20)

“‘Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,’ which translated means, ‘God with Us.’” (Matthew 1:23)

“But the angel said to him, ‘Do not be afraid, Zacharias, for your petition has been heard…’” (Luke 1:13)

“The angel said to her, ‘Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.’” (Luke 1:30)

“But the angel said to them, ‘Do not be afraid; for behold, I bring you good news of great joy which will be for all people…” (Luke 2:10)

Note that the angel always had a reason not to be afraid, and so do we.

And lastly, to get ready to go tell it on the mountain!

“When they had seen this, they [the shepherds] made known the statement which had been told them about this Child. And all who heard it wondered at the things which were told them about this child.” (Luke 2:17-18)

Merry Christmas!!!!!!!!!!

Ranking Their Positions: Obscenity/Pornography

2007-12-22T20:30:00.000-05:00

This is the fourth post in a series examining the presidential candidates' positions on key issues for conservative Christians. The content of this series mainly consists of the platforms presented on the candidates' official sites, but, occasionally, other resources are utilized when necessary.

In my opinion, conservative Christian activists and politicians should speak about pornography (and obscenity in general) much more than they presently do.

Pornography exploits the women involved in its production, making them nothing more than sexual objects—veritable visual prostitutes. It endangers all women by objectifying them in the site of some men—usually those already predisposed to be dangerous. It ends marriages, shatters families, harms children, robs their innocence, chains men’s minds through addiction, and creates unrealistic expectations in young men.

And for what? All this destruction and depravity serves only to pad the wallets of a few perverted entrepreneurs and feed the animal lusts of some sex-crazed and/or addicted consumers.

Is this what America stands for? Is this what we pride ourselves in? I sincerely hope not.

Now, I do not intend to sound like I am against the First Amendment. Those foundational freedoms found therein have allowed me to freely believe what I believe, to freely speak about it, and to freely write about it. But you can’t blow yourself up in the name of Allah. You can’t, technically, libel or slander someone. You can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater. There are limitations on our rights, and the Supreme Court, in 1957, ruled in Roth v. United States that obscenity (which encompasses pornography) is not protected under the First Amendment. The problem is that the Court went on to define “obscenity” so narrowly that it practically rendered the ruling void, and actually overturned many obscenity laws. The burgeoning pornography movement found its genesis in this major event.

The dilemma that faced the “Warren Court” (named after Chief Justice Earl Warren, who served from 1953-1969) still festers today. How should “obscenity” and “pornography” be defined, who should get to define it, and how far should restrictions and punishments go? I won’t begin to pretend that I know the answers to those questions, but I do know that we need to be discussing them.

We must very cautiously hammer out this issue. Expanded government jurisdiction is not something to be granted flippantly. But free reign for the most perverse in our society to produce their fruits is not exactly hunky-dory, either. Think about a harsh, impartial weed-killer: it can kill your flowers, if you are not careful, but, if you don't use it, the weeds will take over the garden.

Realize that any number of things can be used for evil, as well as for good. Someone, somewhere, will undoubtedly find or design a way to corrupt just about anything. But notice that pornography lacks a "good" function. At its core, pornography is nothing more than a tool for lust and sexual fantasies: thought-adultery (Matthew 5). There is no redeeming value. It has not been corrupted: it's corrupt. Thus, it is part of an intrinsic cause-effect relationship. Its byproducts are really main products. We are simply reaping what we've sown.

To this point, I have avoided the topic of profanity and violence in entertainment. I have done so because these areas of "obscenity" are much more "gray," if you will, though I hate to use such a morally relativistic term. Nevertheless, where pornography does not have redeeming value, an expression of violence can in certain circumstances. But can it for young children? That's a different question. And though I see little to no redemptive elements in profanity, it seems that it would be just as (if not more) difficult to define as pornography, with less severe repercussions.

Because of these complications, I have deduced that, concerning the latter two segments of obscenity, the government should primarily endeavor to empower parents.

Getting back to the presidential race, I should point out that only a few of the presidential candidates address the topic as a part of their platforms. The ones that do focus on the child-aspect of the problem. But we must recognize that child porn (and pornographers drawing children into pornographic sites) is only the next logical step in a sequential moral descent. Yes, such child exploitation is an even greater depravity. But it results from lowering the bar and blurring the line of what’s acceptable according to our culture’s morality. Once we begin to move the benchmark, the standard-bearer, someone else will continue to push it and push it to detestable places. Eventually, it disappears altogether.

Case in point: in a “free love” society, who’s to say that the “North American Man-Boy Love Association” is despicable?

We must be careful not to behave “holier-than-thou” about child pornography, if we are not willing to condemn adult porn also. We must avoid rebuking those who try to attract children to pornography, if we will not condemn producers of pornography in general. After all, whose standard are we using? God’s, or our own?

I’m not claiming that God views adult porn and child porn with equal indignation, or that punishments for the two misdeeds should be the same. What I am saying is that they are both reprehensible, even if not equally so. The mistake in condemning one and not the other is that a faulty standard of measure is being used--our own. Although, admittedly, this mistake very well may be one of omission, not of conscious decision.

Having said that, when we recognize the major obstacles of eliminating pornography in general--defining it, controlling it, and convincing the morally weak American people to prohibit it--and also realize that obscenity is multifaceted and thereby even more complex, providing ways to protect children from being exposed to porn and exploited through it is probably the best course of action to take at this time, especially since it is readily doable and likely most urgent.

In closing, let me leave you with this thought: Remember that in every public policy battle we encounter—be it about abortion, marriage, the Second Amendment, the First Amendment, or pornography—it is more important to change hearts and minds than to change laws. In fact, it is necessary to change hearts and minds before changing laws. We must cultivate a respect for language, life, and proper sexuality. That is our first and main priority.

T1. Duncan Hunter (*No longer running: dropped out 1/19/08; endorsed Mike Huckabee)

Concerned "with the questionable material our children continue to have through the Internet and other entertainment products," Hunter believes that "those distributing harmful material to young people should be held responsible." Also, he drafted the Parent's Empowerment Act and voted for the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005. The Parent's Empowerment Act "will allow parents to sue any person who knowingly sells or distributes a product that contains material that is harmful to minors, empowering parents to protect their children from the predatory practices of pornographic distributors."

T1. Alan Keyes

Keyes addresses pornography very intelligently and relates it to the whole crisis of the family and wrongheaded theories of sexuality. He cautions against too much fervor in censorship, but declares that "Society is...entitled to establish clear standards and define the kinds of behavior or things permitted in a public place, so that we won't need to fear that our children will be polluted in a such an environment. We proceed to set up barriers in public libraries, on the Internet, in bookstores, and in movie houses and segregate the things that we don't want to give our children access to." He explains that this doesn't restrain free expression, but "simply requires society's delegated representatives to organize the distribution of the results of that expression, so that we can keep public places free of what are regarded as offensive influences or materials. This kind of approach doesn't, itself, involve censorship and abuse — it simply involves maintaining basic standards of public decency, so that we are able to act and work and live in such a way as to avoid those things we believe to be offensive, and can also act on the assumption that our children will, by and large, likewise be able to avoid them. That's what responsible parents and citizens have a right to ask for, at least at the state and local level. Such legislation of public standards is less a federal responsibility, except regarding such broad influences as the Internet."

T1. Mitt Romney

Romney wants to make sure all new computers have optional "Software Filters To Guard Children From Online Pornography." Furthermore, he wants to "promote and increase awareness of available parental controls filtering products for existing computers."

Along with that, "Romney will require the Department of Justice to enforce our existing federal obscenity laws."

Key Quote: "I'd like to see us clean up the water in which our kids are swimming. I'd like to keep pornography from coming up on their computers. I'd like to keep drugs off the streets. I'd like to see less violence and sex on TV and in video games and in movies. And if we get serious about this, we can actually do a great deal to clean up the water in which our kids and our grandkids are swimming."

T1. Fred Thompson (No longer running: dropped out 1/22/08)

Thompson says that he is "committed to...Combating the spread of obscenity over TV and other media by making sure parents can better exercise their responsibilities." He explains, "While censorship is dangerous, obscenity is not legally protected, and laws against it should be vigorously enforced. Parents need to be empowered to protect their children from inappropriate matter, whether on TV, in video games, or on the computer. And we must do all we can to fight the explosion of child pornography over the Internet."

>>Hillary Clinton

Not that this is going to convince you to vote for her (punch me if it does), but Hillary does seem to warrant a mention, saying that she would prioritize "Protecting children against violence and sexual content in the media and studying the impact of electronic media on children's cognitive, social, and physical development."

>>Mike Gravel

You may be wondering, "How on earth could Mike Gravel be worth mentioning?" Well, it's not because he qualifies. Rather, it's to illustrate that there are those militantly on the other side. Gravel believes in "Net Neutrality," supporting "a free and open Internet with unlimited access to all sites regardless of content. He will do this by supporting legislation and regulation that keeps you in control of your internet usage and promotes free speech."

Here are the updated rankings, without Tom Tancredo, after four issues. Any candidate who did not mention obscenity/pornography as part of their platforms is considered to be ranked sixth in this category, which, by the way, is the best thing to happen so far for Rudy Giulani in this series:

Hunter: 1.75
Keyes: 1.75
Huckabee: 2.25
Thompson: 3.75
Paul: 4.25
Romney: 4.75
McCain: 6.25
Giulani: 7.5

Did You Know...

2007-12-22T19:30:00.000-05:00

...that there is a state called Wyoming? Okay, so you've probably heard something about the Cowboy State before. Maybe you learned in school what its border states are or that its capital is Cheyenne. But, in reference to presidential politics, this state has seemed to have fallen off the map.

That may not be all that surprising when you look at it in the grand scheme of things. After all, it boasts the smallest population of any state in the U.S., with less than 500,000 people, as of 2000. As a matter of fact, that's fewer people than Washington, D.C. Furthermore, Wyoming voted strongly Republican (69%) for George W. Bush in 2004, meaning that any Republican candidate will probably win the state.

But here's the catch: the big thrust of its caucus happens on January 5th, two days after the Iowa caucuses and three days before the New Hampshire primary; and the caucus process has already begun. Yet no Republican candidate, save Ron Paul, is courting, or has courted, support there. Apparently, a victory in Wyoming is not considered a momentum-builder.

Wyoming Republicans actually risked some of their delegates at the national convention by moving up their caucus date. In 2004, they held their caucus on May 8th. Reportedly, they were willing to take this risk in hopes of getting some attention, which they really have not.

If the other candidates don't start paying attention in the next two weeks, they could be giving away a state to Ron Paul.

Tancredo Drops Out, Endorses Romney

2007-12-20T17:26:00.000-05:00

Read Yahoo Article.

Tom Tancredo has finally made official what long seemed imminent. The fiery representative from Colorado ended his bid at the Republican nomination for President, opting to endorse rival Mitt Romney.

Tancredo used his platform as a candidate to magnify the issue of illegal immigration, making the other candidates "toughen up" their positions on the subject. However, Tancredo banged the illegal immigration drum so loudly, so often, and so exclusively that he insured himself no chance in the race. Recently, it was becoming clearer and clearer that he was using his candidacy as a "bully pulpit" and nothing more.

His endorsement of Mitt Romney is only moderately surprising. Duncan Hunter would have been the most logical choice, in a strict ideological sense, but Tancredo clearly wanted to get behind someone with a "chance at winning," so to speak. Fred Thompson would have been another potential choice, but he's also been down in the polls lately.

So, Tancredo backed Mitt Romney, violating the principles of this blog in favor of supporting, as he said, "the best hope for our cause." It's hard to tell just what, if any, effect his endorsement will have on the race. Will his relatively few supporters follow him onto the Romney bandwagon? Perhaps some will, but any Christian conservatives who might have been supporting him may not.

There is now one less "potentially supportable Christian candidate" in the field, though Tancredo never looked likely to be a legitimate option.

With the next edition of "Ranking Their Positions," I will provide the updated average rankings.

A More Divisive Question, Perhaps?

2007-12-18T14:55:00.000-05:00

Thanks to all the participants in the most recent WWCP poll.

There were only 19 votes in this "election." I credit that fact to the blog's recent inactivity, the lack of publicity the blog has gotten in the past few weeks, and the poor placement in the sidebar. Hopefully, none of those issues will influence future polls on this site.

Even with the relatively few number of votes, the results of this poll were quite interesting. Unlike the last poll, which had a clear consensus, this poll split the votes. The question was simple: "What do you dislike the most?"

7 of you (36%) answered that you disliked "Flip-Flopping" the most, perhaps residue from John Kerry or a present rebuke of Mitt Romney.

6 of you (31%) said that you disliked "Lying about or obscuring one's track-record (or current political views)" the most. I should've clarified this, but it refers both to one's own record/views and one's opponents'. I don't know whether that clarification would've garnered this answer more support or not.

There was a two-way tie for third, with 3 people each (15%) saying that they most dislike "Attack Ads" and "Perpetuating the idea that only certain candidates can win in the general election." I'd be interested to see what just Huckabee supporters would have to say if these two choices were the only options, since he's been the victim of both ploys. Although, the "Attack Ads" against him have still been somewhat tame so far.

What do I take out of this poll? Well, I think it's probable that all of you dislike all of those things, and you simply had to pick one based upon your strongest feelings.

Please vote in the next polls (notice the plural).

Ranking Their Positions: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

2007-12-15T16:30:00.000-05:00

This is the third post in a series examining the presidential candidates' positions on key issues for conservative Christians.

This post will examine the candidates' platforms on the Second Amendment: the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Some may not see this issue as one with which Christians should concern themselves. What do guns have to do with loving one's neighbor? The Golden Rule? Turning the other cheek?

Well, while I do believe that Christians should avoid violence if at all possible (Romans 12:18), I also believe that everyone has a fundamental right to defend themselves, their families, their property, and their freedoms. This is a right that no government has the jurisdiction to revoke.
Still, though, some Christians may be bothered by the fact that someone like me would be so passionate about preserving the right of self-defense. To read a more complete reply to this concern, follow this link. But I'd like to point out some things that the aforementioned article doesn't:

As "biblical" evidence for a non-resistance philosophy, some may point to Jesus' condemnation of Peter for using his sword at the time of Jesus' arrest (John 18). But we must take that condemnation in context. First of all, Jesus was on earth for a specific purpose. He was meant to be arrested (Matthew 26:54). Peter was trying to "play God," so to speak, in that he wanted to take Jesus down a path that was not God's will. Did Peter really have so little faith in God and in Jesus that he didn't think Christ could survive or escape on His own? Jesus had already done that several times. He reminded Peter of his power, saying, "...do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels?" (Matthew 26:53)

Secondly, when Jesus warned against "living by the sword," (Matthew 26:52) I can't imagine he was condemning self-defense. He couldn't have been prohibiting the use of the sword universally and eternally, because he told his disciples to purchase swords just a bit earlier (Luke 22:36). Jesus was being arrested. Peter didn't know why, or what would happen, but there didn't appear to be any immediate lethal danger. Yet, in a moment of intense stress, Peter's knee-jerk reaction was to take the only decisive action he could think of--attack! He was usurping the civil government's power by trying to prevent Jesus' seizure forcefully. His actions are understandable, but, if he would have killed the high-priest's servant, his actions would have also been murderous.

A second thing Christian pacifists might point to is that we don't see the example of self-defense from the apostles. But I think it is a grave mistake to take their "example" as definitive in this instance.We have to give Paul and the other apostles some credit for using a little common sense. When you are being taken captive by a mob, you don't fight back--you will end up dead. When you are being arrested by Roman soldiers, you don't fight back--you will end up dead. Even if you end up killing some of them, you will never be able to talk your way out of the consequences of your actions later. Besides, they may not have been trying to kill you in the first place.

Situations such as those in which the apostles found themselves are entirely different than those which we'd traditionally think of as calling for self-defense.

Thirdly, I'd also like to point out that the New Testament certainly isn't anti-soldier or anti-governmental force. But civil and military officers are no more or no less than self-defenders on a societal and unit level.

One more thing: the argument can be made that, amidst certain circumstances, complete non-resistance could be construed as a form of suicidal behavior, which is certainly not condoned by Scripture. Plus, we must recognize that self-defense often involves protecting others than yourself, such as the elderly, the young, the weak, the vulnerable, and so on. Would God have us stand by and do nothing? I think not.

In conclusion, if you feel that complete pacificism for Christ is a calling upon your life, that is a choice you are permitted to make, and I respect you if you make it. But it is not one which you can rightfully impose upon others--whether they be non-Christians or Christians who simply disagree with you.

Now, we can debate and deliberate about some reasonable gun restrictions. For instance, should guns be allowed in establishments where alcohol is served? Should those with a serious mental health record be allowed to purchase guns? Do criminals guilty of violent acts voluntarily relinquish their Second Amendment rights? Should gun sales be monitored (with background checks) so as to prevent hostile criminals, the mentally ill, and even illegal aliens from attaining firearms? Should a person be allowed to own guns if he/she generally poses a greater threat to society (and even himself/herself) than society (with all its criminals and psychopaths) poses to him/her?

These (and others) are valid questions worthy of discussion, and they are part of the reason which made this such a difficult issue on which to analyze and rank the candidates' positions. (The other reason is that some of the candidates have had sketchy track-records.) However, since government control usually leads to more government control, and since it is often more trouble than its worth, I opted to rank the candidates highest who call for the least amount of restrictions.

T1. Mike Huckabee

In reference to the Second Amendment, Huckabee repeats his claim of track-record supremacy that he also asserts concerning abortion and marriage. He says on his site, "No candidate has a stronger, more consistent record on Second Amendment rights than I do." On a personal level, the former governor of Arkansas touts being "the first Governor in the country to have a concealed handgun license." On matters of public policy, he opposed (and opposes) assault weapon bans, the Brady Bill, and frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers.

Huckabee appears to comprehensively understand what's at stake with the Second Amendment debate. He also understands the very essence of the rights, saying that "Second Amendment rights belong to individuals, not cities or states. I oppose gun control based on geography." This is a clear dig at rival candidate Rudy Giulani, who has stated that he thinks differing measures of gun control are appropriate in different areas, as if citizens of some regions don't deserve the same constitutional rights as those of others.

The Gun Owners of America's website says that "Mike Huckabee has been in the heat of battle over gun rights and has proven himself to be a steadfast friend to gun owners and the Second Amendment."

Key Quote: "Zealously protecting your Second Amendment rights is another way that I will lift all law-abiding Americans up, by consistently championing your right to defend yourself."

T1. Duncan Hunter (*No longer running: dropped out 1/19/08; endorsed Mike Huckabee)

Although he "thoroughly" enjoys hunting, Hunter (pun unavoidable) doubtlessly understands the essence of the Second Amendment. He states on his site that the Second Amendment "is not about hunting. It is about the right of you and me to be secure in our homes. We must vigorously defend against all attempts to chip away at the Second Amendment. You know as well as I do that there is one thing criminals prefer over any other: unarmed victims." Receiving an A from the Gun Owners of America and an A+ from the National Rifle Association, Hunter clearly practices what he preaches.

Key Quote: "It seems every election year, some liberal politician dons an NRA cap and grabs a shotgun for a hunting photo-op, as if that means they support our right as Americans to keep and bear arms. I, myself, thoroughly enjoy hunting, having just recently spent a great weekend hunting elk in Arizona. But, the Second Amendment is not about hunting."

T1. Alan Keyes

Keyes nearly plagiarizes the Declaration of the Independence when he explains on his site why he is a "strong supporter" of the Second Amendment. Following so closely that document's line of thinking, he believes that a "strong case can be made...that it is a fundamental DUTY of the free citizen to keep and bear arms"--not just a right.

With a logical train of thought, he deduces that the "gun control agenda is...an implicit denial of the human capacity for self-government and is tyrannical in principle."

Key Quote: "The gun control agenda is based on the view that ordinary citizens cannot be trusted to use the physical power of arms responsibly. But a people that cannot be trusted with guns cannot be trusted with the much more dangerous powers of self-government. The gun control agenda is thus an implicit denial of the human capacity for self-government and is tyrannical in principle."

T1. Ron Paul

As a stalwart upholder of the Constitution, one would expect nothing less from Ron Paul than complete and utter support for the Second Amendment. He delivers nothing less, saying that he has "always supported the Second Amendment." Fully comprehending the importance of the amendment, Paul has introduced several pieces of legislation to protect the right to keep and bear arms. Saying that "You have the right to protect your life, liberty, and property," Paul promises to "continue to guard the liberties stated in the Second Amendment."

The Gun Owners of America call Paul "a leader in the fight to defend and restore the Second Amendment."

Key Quote: "I share our Founders’ belief that in a free society each citizen must have the right to keep and bear arms. They ratified the Second Amendment knowing that this right is the guardian of every other right, and they all would be horrified by the proliferation of unconstitutional legislation that prevents law-abiding Americans from exercising this right."

5. Tom Tancredo (*No longer running: Ended candidacy on 12/20/07, supporting Mitt Romney)

Evidenced by the fact that the National Rifle Association gives him an "A" grade, Tancredo "fully and completely" supports the Second Amendment. He considers it hypocritical that the ACLU does not defend this right, and that the federal government does not make it binding upon the states.

According to the Gun Owners of America, Tancredo wavered in his Second Amendment shoes immediately after the Columbine shooting. But, since then, he has been devoutly pro-gun.

6. Fred Thompson (No longer running: dropped out 1/22/08)

Fred Thompson also understands the point of the Second Amendment, "strongly" supporting it. He harshly criticizes gun control measures, saying, "Disarming law-abiding citizens does not prevent crime. The answer to violent crime is smart, effective, and aggressive law enforcement. The real effect of these gun-control measures is to place onerous restrictions on law-abiding citizens who use firearms for such legal activities as self-defense, sport-shooting, hunting, and collecting." As President, he vows to strictly enforce the law and protect the right to keep and bear arms.

Despite this tough talk, the Gun Owners of America researched that, while in the Senate, Thompson voted pro-gun only 20 of 33 times. The NRA-ILA rated him a C-. However, one should keep in mind that an "anti-gun vote" isn't always as blatant as it sounds. For instance, one of these votes was a vote for an "anti-gun Clinton judge appointment." Furthermore, just about any gun control vote is constituted as an "anti-gun" vote.

T7. John McCain

McCain believes we have "sacred duty to protect" our Second Amendment rights. He believes gun control is a crime-fighting failure, and that "Law abiding citizens should not be asked to give up their rights because of criminals - criminals who ignore gun control laws anyway."

All sounds good, right? Well, the GOA organization gave him an "F" grade for 2004 and 2006. They say that "he is seeking to "come home" to the pro-gun community, but the wounds are deep and memories long." Go to their site to read what he's been involved with in the past.

Key Quote: "We have a responsibility to ensure that criminals who violate the law are prosecuted to the fullest, rather than restricting the rights of law abiding citizens."

T7. Mitt Romney

Romney sounds like a Second Amendment stalwart. He wants to support it and strengthen it. The Gun Owners of America take a humorous angle on Mitt Romney's position on firearms, saying that he "sounds like the modern-day incarnation of John Wayne." However, that statement is not the compliment that it sounds like. Rather, it is a set-up sentence, as the GOA's analysis goes on to show Romney's past to be somewhat wishy-washy on the topic of gun control. The GOA assert that Romney "likes to frequent both sides of the legislative aisle." They want to know, "Will the real Mitt Romney please stand up?"

Key Quote: "I believe the Second Amendment is about more than just self-defense or sport; it's about the basic freedom of lawful citizens to live their lives – to engage in the normal pursuits of society without the interference of the heavy hand of government."

9. Rudy Giulani

Giulani is a great example of why you can't always accept the way people define themselves at face value. Rudy considers himself a "strong supporter" of the Second Amendment, but he also believes that individual states and cities possess the legitimate authority to impose an indefinite number and degree of restrictions on guns in order to deal with crime, as needed. He postulates that New York may need different measures than, say, Ruralopolis, USA.

The GOA's analysis astutely points out, "Apparently, in Giuliani's America law-abiding citizens in large cities would not enjoy the same constitutional liberties as the rest of the country. Why? Are city dwellers not as trustworthy as country folks? Are metro-Americans not deserving of the right to self-protection?

"Disarming citizens because they live in a high crime area is taking away the most effective means of self-defense from the people who need it most. Creating mandatory victims is no way to fight a crime problem."

But that's not all! The article goes on to show that Giulani has supported national gun-control measures in the past. "If Giuliani's gun control agenda was really limited 'only' to big cities, that would be disturbing enough. But the record shows that the Mayor continually tried to export his gun control agenda to the rest of the nation."

Key Quote: "Rudy Giuliani is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. He understands that every law-abiding American has an individual right to keep and bear arms that is guaranteed by the Constitution."

Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico is considered by some to be the "best" gun candidate on the Democratic side, but even he, as a congressman, has voted anti-gun more than a couple of times.

Rankings (after three issues):

Huckabee: 1

Hunter: 2

Keyes: 2

Paul: 4.3

Tancredo: 4.7

Thompson: 5.3

Romney: 7

McCain: 7.3

Giulani: 9

Special thanks to the Gun Owners of America. Without their resources, this article would never have been sufficient.

New Posts Coming Soon.

2007-12-11T21:35:00.000-05:00

Have you ever thought about the fact that, if you weren't so busy, you'd find things to do to make yourself busy? It's kind of a brain teaser, but true nonetheless.

Anyways, I've been really busy the last week or so, and, if I hadn't been, I'd have been working on this blog. In any case, I am working on several posts and I hope to post them within the next few days.

You have spoken UNMISTAKABLY!

2007-12-02T21:37:00.000-05:00

I want to thank all of you who took part in WWCP's first ever poll.

When asked who you think would make the worst President, you answered overwhelmingly that Hillary Clinton would. With 32 votes (65%), she received almost double the amount of votes of all the other candidates combined!

The only person even remotely resembling a challenger for the throne was Rudy Giulani, who received 7 votes (14%).

I found it particularly interesting that almost nobody caught on to the fact that "Other" includes the likes of Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, and everyone else in the world. The hodge-podge category got only 1 vote (2%).

Also, it is clear that Mrs. Clinton maintains her position as Public Enemy Number One among conservatives, as Barack Obama (4 votes: 8%) and John Edwards (3 votes: 6%) didn't stand a chance.

Mitt Romney received 2 votes (4%).

Please vote in the new poll.

Ranking Their Positions: The Sanctity of Marriage

2007-12-02T14:48:00.000-05:00

This is the second part in a series of posts focusing on the Republican presidential candidates' positions on key issues for conservative Christian citizens. The series could be nicknamed "Straight from the Horses' Mouths," because my primary resources are the candidates' official sites.
This post is dedicated to the sanctity of marriage.

1. Mike Huckabee:

Huckabee says that he is--and always has been--a proponent of a federal constitutional marriage amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman. Huckabee proclaims that no "other candidate has supported traditional marriage more consistently and steadfastly than I have." This proclamation goes right along with his claim to be the most pro-life candidate in the field.
Huckabee fervently declares his belief that "nothing in our society matters more" than marriage, since, as he puts it, our "true strength" comes from our families. He points out that the "growing number of children born out of wedlock and the rise in no-fault divorce have been a disaster for our society."
A proud husband of 33 years, Mike had success in the area of marriage as governor of Arkansas, signing a state constitutional amendment and helping Arkansas become "only the third to adopt 'covenant marriage.'"

Key Quote: "Our true strength doesn't come from our military or our gross national product, it comes from our families. What's the point of keeping the terrorists at bay in the Middle East if we can't keep decline and decadence at bay here at home?"

2. Alan Keyes:

Keyes picks the ultimate basis for defending traditional marriage: God's decree. "Marriage is the God-ordained covenant between one woman and one man that provides the essential societal support for families." He states that "God's plan" was for marriage to induce "procreation." Keyes rightfully declares that sex is not merely pleasure "for pleasure's sake," and that marriage is not self-serving, but sacrificial according to "God's will."
Although all that Keyes says is true, he fails to point out that marriage is still sacred and can still be God-honoring without the bearing and/or rearing of children.

Key Quote: "And I think that's what's involved in our debate right now — people trying to substitute an understanding of human sexuality that is really incompatible with the moral foundations of marriage life."

3. Duncan Hunter: (*No longer running: dropped out 1/19/08; endorsed Mike Huckabee)

Like Mike Huckabee, Hunter believes that Congress should pass a constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage. In fact, he cosponsored and voted for a bill which proposes such an amendment "declaring that marriage in the United States shall consist solely of the union of a man and a woman."

Key Quote: "I firmly believe that marriage is one of the most important social institutions we have and that it is central to promoting family values and raising children in a healthy environment... I firmly believe that children need the unique influence offered by both a father and a mother."

4. Fred Thompson: (*No longer running; dropped out 1/22/08)

As President, Fred Thompson promises that he would endeavor to "strengthen the institution of marriage" as a union between one man and one woman. He supported the Defense of Marriage Act while he was a senator, and he supports the passage of a constitutional amendment "to prevent activist judges from misreading the Constitution to force same-sex marriage on any state and on our society." Whether this means he just wants the amendment to keep activist judges out of the states' hair, or whether he wants the amendment to define marriage for all the states, I do not know.

Key Quote: "Fred Thompson believes marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and that this institution is the foundation of society."

5. Tom Tancredo: (*No longer running: Ended candidacy on 12/20/07, supporting Mitt Romney)

"Gay marriage" is the second-to-last thing listed on Tancredo's page of "Stands," listed after such things as Social Security and Agriculture and only before a short blurb about "Political Correctness." This apparently demonstrates the lack of priority status which Tancredo denotes to the sanctity of marriage.
However, Tancredo is solidly against gay marriage. He says that a federal constitutional amendment should be the last choice, but adds that, because of activist judges--and even mayors--we've reached that point.
Tom takes a different approach in his argument against gay marriage. Rather than pointing to the importance of strong, traditional, healthy family structure, Tancredo argues that the state's interest in marriage is procreation, and that is why it should support heterosexual marriage.

Key Quote: "Population is power. Society needs a young generation to defend the country in battle, to support its programs with taxes and to carry on its culture and traditions. The mere fact that two people are in a loving relationship does not matter to the state. Society supports traditional marriage because it is the only union which, in the ordinary course, leads to children, without the intervention of a third party."

6. Mitt Romney:

Romney follows in the footsteps of Tancredo, listing "American Culture and Values" as the next-to-last issue of his platform. He does, however, support a Federal Marriage Amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Reportedly, he has fought hard for marriage, saying, "I enforced the law that banned out-of-state same-sex couples from coming to Massachusetts to get married. I went to the court again and again. I testified here before Congress for the Federal Marriage Amendment. And I championed our successful petition drive that collected a record 170,000 signatures for a citizen ballot initiative to protect marriage."
However, Romney used to be softer and more moderate on the issue of gay "rights." In a 1994 interview, he said that the "gay and lesbian community needs more support from the Republican party." He criticized "extremists" and said that "People of integrity don't force their beliefs on others, they make sure that others can live by different beliefs they may have..." He was still against gay marriage back then, but he said, on gay rights, he was considered a "centrist and a moderate." Not good.
Furthermore, some claim that Romney actually helped to implement gay marriage when judicial activism forced it upon the people of Massachusetts just recently.
Of course, I'm not denying that a politician can change or strengthen his positions. But, again, we're faced with the fact that he is not only a politician (trying to garner the conservative Christian voting block), but also a Mormon. I cannot put any trust in his steadfastness.

Key Quote(s): "Last year the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court struck a blow against the family, as I'm sure you know. The court forgot that [traditional] marriage is first and foremost about nurturing and developing children. Its ruling meant that our society is supposed to be indifferent about whether children have a mother and a father...
"America cannot continue to lead the family of nations around the world if we suffer the collapse of the family here at home."

7. Ron Paul:

I sort of chastised Tom Tancredo and Mitt Romney for putting the gay marriage issue, essentially, at the bottom of their lists of priorities. Then I checked out Ron Paul's website. He does not have anything about marriage on his list of issues. So I googled the topic. I came across an article written by him entitled "The Federal Marriage Amendment is a Very Bad Idea." Although he uses some good logic and makes some good points in the article, he comes to a bad, illogical conclusion--that we should not pass a federal constitutional marriage amendment.
Paul opposes gay marriage, of course, but, as in most cases, he is against the increased power of the federal government. I can't disagree with him there, but if the federal government wasn't supposed to have some power, then why does it exist? In my opinion, the power to enforce God's, tradition's, and nature's definition of marriage is legitimate and necessary.
Paul does support the Defense of Marriage Act, which keeps one state from having to recognize the marriage license of another state. Also, he supports the Marriage Protection Act, which serves to strengthen the DMA by protecting it from federal court challenges.
Paul says he is "sympathetic" to those who desire a constitutional amendment protecting marriage, but he says that he "respectully" disagrees with such people. Rightfully expressing that marriage is not defined by government (though that is beside the point), Paul fears that a federal marriage amendment would come back to haunt conservatives, saying, "Ironically, liberal social engineers who wish to use federal government power to redefine marriage will be able to point to the constitutional marriage amendment as proof that the definition of marriage is indeed a federal matter!"

Key Quote: "Because of the dangers to liberty and traditional values posed by the unexpected consequences of amending the Constitution to strip power from the states and the people and further empower Washington, I cannot in good conscience support the marriage amendment to the United States Constitution. Instead, I plan to continue working to enact the Marriage Protection Act and protect each state’s right not to be forced to recognize a same sex marriage."

8. John McCain:

In the same mold as Ron Paul, McCain apparently doesn't feel that the sanctity of marriage warrants a significant segment of his platform. Instead, he forced me to go googling again. With the assistance of that search engine, I discovered that McCain thinks a same-sex marriage ban is "unnecessary--and un-Republican." Again like Ron Paul, McCain feels that it is an issue which should be left up to the states and only addressed nationally in measures such as the Defense of Marriage Act. I can understand such reasoning, but I believe that marriage--like abortion--is the wrong issue on which to exert one's vehement states' rights' philosophy.
Moreover, my head is spinning from trying to figure out whether McCain is for or against civil unions. If it's difficult to figure out where a person stands, I am very wary of supporting them.

Key Quote: "What evidence do we have that states are incapable of further exercising an authority they have exercised successfully for over 200 years?"

9. Rudy Giulani

Rudy Giulani's valuation of the marriage issue is not quite as bad as Ron Paul and John McCain's, but slightly worse than Tom Tancredo and Mitt Romney's. Giulani's site lists marriage as the last of his "12 Commitments."According to his site, Giulani "has not--and never has--supported gay marriage. But he believes in equal rights under law for all Americans." In other words, he believes in devaluing marriage by giving the exclusive benefits of marriage to homosexual couples under the aliases of "domestic partnerships" and "civil unions." All I can say is, a skunk by any other name still stinks. And civil unions and domestic partnerships analogically stink. America should not be in the business of rewarding immoral and unhealthy lifestyles by providing pseudo-equal status to the honorable institution of matrimony.
Rudy has reportedly conservatized his positions somewhat recently, but , even if that type of pandering were worth anything, Giulani hasn't shifted his positions drastically enough. Besides, I'm not sure Rudy Giulani even knows what marriage is about. He's been divorced twice and married thrice, notoriously participating in an adulterous affair while still married and still mayor. Is that what we want in the White House? An unfaithful husband?

Key Quotes: "...he supports domestic partnerships that provide stability for committed partners in important legal and personal matters, while preserving the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman."

At least in appearance, the three leading Democratic candidates hold similar positions to Rudy Giulani (and even, perhaps, John McCain and maybe somewhat like Ron Paul), only more liberal. John Edwards, especially, is pandering hard to the Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender community.

Average Rankings (after two issues) [***with Tancredo***]:

Huckabee: 1
Hunter: 2.5
Keyes: 2.5
Tancredo: 4.5
Thompson: 5
Paul: 6
Romney: 7
McCain: 7.5
Giulani: 9

**Notes: Keyes opposes civil unions, as do Huckabee and Hunter, although the latter two do not mention civil unions on their websites. Thompson considers civil unions "not a good idea," but would allow the states to make that decision. Tom Tancredo appears to oppose domestic partnership benefits. Ron Paul's position on civil unions is, in all likelihood, similar to his position on marriage--i.e., leave it to the states.

New Post Coming Soon...

2007-12-01T12:33:00.000-05:00

I'm in the middle of working on my second post in my "Ranking Their Positions" series. I plan on posting it sometime tonight. So please check back tonight or tomorrow.

Huckabee Starting to Get Some "Big-Name" Christian Support

2007-11-28T15:47:00.000-05:00

As a number of Christian leaders and conservative organizations began to pick sides (and James Dobson abstained from making an endorsement yet), I wondered, "Why are no Christians teaming up with Mike Huckabee?"

Well, finally, some are. Yesterday, Huckabee's website announced the formation of the "Faith and Values Coalition for Huckabee." This list of 30 Christian leaders includes such names as Michael Farris (Chair of Home School Legal Defense Association and Chancellor of Patrick Henry College), Randy Alcorn (Founder and Director of Eternal Perspective Ministries, best-selling author of 28 books, fiction and nonfiction), and Don Wildmon (Founder and Chairman of American Family Association).

Then, today, Huckabee announced the personal endorsement of Jerry Falwell, Jr..

This is a good start. Hopefully the momentum will continue.

Republican Debate; Tonight, 8 p.m. EST; CNN/YouTube

2007-11-28T15:42:00.000-05:00