On his radio program that I love to listen to,
I am an evangelical Christian. I told the woman on the telephone (for the 2nd time) that I would tell God that I was not going to participate in The Republican Party’s release of an almost definitively fundamental American and moral principle that human life is not a matter of our convenience. A society that digests and assimilates the idea that it is is well along the course of a mortal civil illness. And the Republican abandonment of that principle as the only major political forces defending it is a MAJOR landmark in the course of that decline. It is around this point that I was disconnected: "I don’t see what this has to do with what you would tell God…” click.
An election loss is the loss of a battle. Abandoning vital principle is the loss of a war, just like abandonment of the field of physical battle. If pro-life people support a Republican nominee who does not understand that principle, the message is clear to Republican strategists: They don’t need to worry about this, anymore. Those people will support us, no matter what. For “practical” (read: electoral) purposes, why should that principle be taken seriously again? It’s similar to Democrats taking blacks for granted. I would hope that The Republican Party that gave us this nominee would lose and have the sense to not be so foolish, again.
It is not personal against Rudy Giuliani and it’s not about Narcissistic moral posturing. It’s about the vital long-term health of
4 comments:
I assume if Larry were talking to God that God would be told in no uncertain terms that He could remain silent because Larry was "almost definitively" (love that phrase) right about God's views on abortion. Of course, God neglected (including in his incarnation as Jesus Christ) to say anything about the subject in the Bible. Perhaps Dr. Laurence White, a pure demagogue, takes over the position of God in this case?
steve
Being "almost definitive" is something like being "almost pregnant." There is nothing definitive in Scripture about the subject of abortion.
It seems that you suffer from some particularly odious mental derangement. You have templates of demons in you irrationally emotional mind, that you project upon people even with little or no knowledge of them. This is not something I've seen once or even twice. It is a persistent and predictable pattern that cannot be dislodged with the most strenuous logic and toleration.
Of course, many others engage in very similar reflexive generalization. Sometimes, this kind of impulse is labeled with terms like "bigotry" or "reactionary," as it deserves. But, yours is a particularly assertive and virulent example of this unfortunate human tendency. At least, I can be thankful that your echo-chamber of a platform is little or no larger than my own, and few people have to listen to this stuff.
I have told you that Lawrence White is an acquaintance and casual friend of mine, and nothing of the sort of mentor of mine that you repeatedly describe him as. But, I know him as a decent and honorably-intentioned man whose private life I know little of. But, I feel safe in assuming that he has extended more grace toward others including the needy and women in crisis, than you have toward anyone, as your writing reveals none.
Oh, there is much talk about consideration for others. But, you meet the slightest disagreement (even in tactics if not objectives) with a pail of black paint with which you render one of those demons haunting your mind.
Any attempt at disabuse you of these mental delusions appears to be about as effective as trying to pry a 100-year old oak tree from a ground covered with a foot of cement...with a salad fork. Why do you keep bringing up Ted Haggard, about whom NO ONE has said a word? Ted Haggard is relevant to me ONLY as a human being that God loves.
Another one of your demons is James Dobson, with whom I often disagree. But, I and millions of others know him as an extraordinarily decent man. But, oh...perhaps that relies on the assumption of a smidgen of grace and decency on the part of the observer. So, maybe you wouldn't understand.
If you must continue to regurgitate the bile of you troubled system, you could spare me the sight by just reporting it to yourself in a mirror, because it's beyond boring and tedious.
Dear Mr. Kincaid, October 22, 2007
I am aghast at your article “Is Huckabee the next Reagan”?
Euphemistically, your article could not be more factually incorrect.
As an example, in 2005 Arkansas state Senator Jim Holt began a crusade to defeat then Gov. Huckabee’s Bill to give illegal Mexican aliens and OTM’s free college scholarships and prenatal care to illegal women. The latter was passed and the millions spent already by Arkansans on prenatal care and ancillary services is staggering. Sen. Holt and I, along with members of both Arkansas Houses were able to defeat the Arkansas version of the DREAM Act. Huckabee told the press that he was drinking a “different kind of Jesus Juice” than the Senator & I.
Huckabee hosted the national LULAC convention in 2006 in Little Rock where he stated “it won’t be long til us Southern white guys will be in the minority”.
Oct. 2003 he and Robert Trevino flew to Mexico City (and later made additional trips) and crafted a deal to build a Mexican Consulate in Little Rock—a violation of Article 1, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution. The consulate became a reality in 2007 and has become a clearing house for illegal Mexicans satisfying the needs of Tyson’s, Simmons, OK Foods, Georges, Carlyle, ad infinitum. In this deal a private Arkansas consortium signed a 3 yr contract to underwrite all expenses of the consulate, with an option for 3 more years. (see FOI details on website)
This man is a Constitutional criminal and by some standards, an outright criminal and a bald-faced liar.
For detailed information on the life & crimes of Michael Dale Huckabee log on to www.arkansasfreedom.com
Please give the website a concerted look. Look at the facts not his words.
Kindest regards,
Fort Smith, Ark.
Is Huckabee the Next Reagan?
By Cliff Kincaid | October 21, 2007
Showing similar vision, Huckabee sees the Law of the Sea Treaty as a massive giveaway of U.S. sovereignty and resources that must be stopped. This was Reagan's position. Reagan refused to sign it as president.
Send this page to a friend
Format this page for printing
Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has seized on an issue―U.S. sovereignty―that could not only win him the Republican nomination for president but propel him into the White House.
The conventional wisdom is that the former Arkansas governor is starting to get traction because of his views on social issues. While that is undoubtedly a factor, it is also the case that Huckabee for several weeks has been hitting hard on the issue of restoring American sovereignty and resisting the advance of United Nations-led global government. Meantime, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, John McCain, and Mitt Romney have been tiptoeing around the issue, refusing to address or confront the problem that is on the minds of millions of Americans―the decline of America as a sovereign nation and the growing power of international institutions and foreign judges over our lives and destiny as a nation.
The Family Research Council’s recent “values voters” event in Washington, D.C. received extensive coverage. But Huckabee’s strong denunciation of the U.N.’s Law of the Sea Treaty, which is now up for Senate ratification, was generally ignored in the press coverage. He not only attacked the treaty and its provision for an international tribunal to judge America’s conduct on the high seas, but he urged the impeachment of any federal judge who recognized international law above the U.S. Constitution.
“Any federal judge who uses some international law as a precedent to make a court decision ought to be impeached,” he said to strong applause.
Among the attendees at the summit who voted in person, Huckabee came away with 51 percent of the vote. The runner-up, Mitt Romney, received just 10 percent.
Huckabee’s success is due, in part, to adopting the Reagan approach to national security matters. As a candidate, Ronald Reagan had established himself with conservative voters by opposing Jimmy Carter’s Panama Canal Treaty and urging the roll-back of Soviet-style communism. As President, of course, Reagan prevailed in the confrontation with the former Soviet Union. But many forget that the Senate ignored his warnings about the Panama Canal giveaway and passed the treaty anyway, with the result being that the communist Chinese today control the ports at both ends of the canal. Our nation should have listened to Reagan earlier and often.
Showing similar vision, Huckabee sees the Law of the Sea Treaty as a massive giveaway of U.S. sovereignty and resources that must be stopped. This was Reagan’s position. Reagan refused to sign it as president.
All of the liberal Senate Democrats will vote for the treaty, of course, but some Senate Republicans, citing the Bush Administration’s endorsement of it, are considering joining with Joe Biden, Harry Reid & Company and providing the 67 votes it needs for passage. It will be a defining moment, determining whether the Republicans of the future will be Bush Republicans or Reagan Republicans. By taking a firm stand against the pact, Huckabee has cast his lot with the former president. It is starting to pay big political dividends for him.
Among the other GOP candidates, Senator John McCain is considered likely to vote for the treaty, while Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney have yet to take a stand. If they remain silent and the Senate passes the treaty, they will stand accused of ignoring a major threat to our national sovereignty. That can only further damage their campaigns.
Another candidate, Rep. Ron Paul, has denounced the Law of the Sea Treaty. He also introduced a bill in the House of Representatives to withdraw the U.S. from the U.N. At the Family Research Council event, he reiterated that position, calling for U.S. withdrawal from the U.N. and other international agreements and organizations. But his call for a quick withdrawal from Iraq and his tendency to blame U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East for the Islamic terrorist threat to America has hurt him with many conservatives. By contrast, Huckabee denounces “Islamo-fascism” and says “we cannot have the naïve idea that if we leave them alone, they will leave us alone. That will get us killed.”
While denouncing the Law of the Sea Treaty, Huckabee also warned the participants at the Family Research Council event to beware of the U.N’s children’s rights treaty. This is a measure that liberal Democrats would also like to bring before the Senate. The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child would authorize a U.N. committee to monitor and dictate how we raise our children.
Attacking the U.N.’s Law of the Sea Treaty has been a regular theme for Huckabee for several weeks now. During an October 19 appearance on the Glenn Beck show, he said the treaty was “the dumbest thing we’ve ever done. It’s like taking our sovereignty and handing it over to some international tribunal. What’s wrong with us?”
It’s a question that also applies to our media. Most reporters refuse to recognize the resonance of the issue. But this will change, especially if Huckabee continues to make progress by attacking the United Nations and its anti-American agenda.
On October 9, Huckabee had released a statement calling the Law of the Sea Treaty, also known by the acronym LOST, “one of the defining issues of our time.” He declared, “Are we in favor of increasing the power and authority of the United Nations and its subsidiaries at the expense of American sovereignty and vital interests? Or are we opposed to world government, particularly the one envisioned by LOST, charged with implementing a hopelessly outdated and counterproductive socialist and redistributionist agenda from the 1970s? Republicans―starting with their presidential candidates―should stand with Ronald Reagan in rejecting the Law of the Sea Treaty, its threat to our sovereignty and its socialist agenda.”
Reagan’s rejection of the treaty has been distorted by supporters of the pact who insist that his objections were somehow “fixed” by President Clinton and that it deserves to be ratified today.
In fact, as William P. Clark and Edwin Meese noted in an October 8 Wall Street Journal column, the problems were not fixed and Reagan would still reject the pact. Clark served as national security adviser and Meese served as Attorney General under Reagan. They said Reagan would see the treaty as an “effort to promote global government at the expense of sovereign nation states―and most especially the United States.”
By opposing this treaty, Huckabee is demonstrating that he has Reagan’s vision. Conservatives are taking note and rallying to his cause. The media will be forced to take notice eventually.
Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of the AIM Report and can be reached at cliff.kincaid@aim.org
Post a Comment