I am choosing to express myself in the headlines I want to see in the coming year.
January: Thompson Routs Other GOP Rivals in Iowa Upset
February: Thompson Continues Victories in Other States
March: General Petraeus Awarded, Given OK to Continue Surge
April: President Issues Executive Order Stopping Aid to "Sanctuary Cities"
May: Osama bin Laden Found Alive, Hiding in a Burka, and Arrested
June: Supreme Court Declares D. C. Gun Ban Unconstitutional, Other Cities Warned
July: Accident Wipes Out Iran's Nuclear Facilities
August: Kim Jong Il Steps Down, Seeks Counseling for "Everything"
September: It's a Thompson-Hunter Ticket for the GOP
October: "Absolute" Victory in Iraq; Troops Coming Home by Summer
November: GOP Takes Back Congress and Retains White House
December: President-Elect Thompson Names Rudy Giuliani Top Man at Defense
... and a bonus from January 2009:
President Thompson "Deeply Honored" by Statler Brothers' Special Performance at Inaugural
(OK, so that last one isn't really political, but I'd love to see them perform again!)
Hope you enjoyed this! Happy New Year to you all!
Sunday, December 30, 2007
The War on Terror for this Seminarian
Not so long ago, I was asked a question that I had hoped to avoid. Sometimes being known as a seminarian is not exactly what I thought would be. It all started when one of my best friends, who is a fairly recent convert to Christianity, asked me why I had abandoned my support of Mike Huckabee. I commented that my doubts had begun when he announced that he wanted to close Guantanamo. Then came the question: "How can you, as a Christian, support this war and a place like Guantanamo?"
Then I saw a guy named Hal on the comment spots on here today. He was asking what Jesus would do about all of this. These two topics are closely linked. So now I guess, having mulled this over for a while, I think that I have an answer, but not an easy one.
I am convinced that Mike Huckabee is right in one regard: This is a theological issue. How one views religion will lay the groundwork as to how one builds one's own stance on the war and terrorism. If one accepts that we are infidels for our majority's rejection of Mohammed's claim to be God's only prophet -- which is generally the view among the Islamic terrorists -- then we deserve this treatment. Besides, if they die in this jihad of the all-out slaughter of non-believers, they are guaranteed a spot in the Muslim version of Heaven. This is not only their duty, but it is also their inextinguishable zeal to give their all for the cause.
How Christians (even the sociological "Christians" who have never had a personal experience with Jesus) view their religion, and Christ in particular, will shade their respective views of the war. If one sees Jesus as primarily a peacemaker, then it follows that this one would proclaim that we should bring all of our forces home now. This is particularly true if He is not seen as divine. If one is of the opinion that Jesus would approach the terrorists as He did the moneychangers in the temple, then we should go over there, Ann Coulter-style: " We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity... That's war. And this is war."
(Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/coulter/coulter.shtml "This is War" Sept. 13, 2001)
Admittedly, I am much closer to Miss Coulter's position, so that may color my attitude here. But here is my stance on the war from a Biblical stance: Since I believe that Christ was indeed God, His perfect love and His perfect justice must both be satisfied. His justice is always tempered with His mercy. Yes, He would stop the violence, but I do believe that He would keep the unrepentant in a place where they could do no more harm. And remember that He did have people reject Him: the rich, young ruler who could not give up his possessions (Mark 10:17-22), the crowd at the synagogue when He read from the book of Isaiah (Luke 4:16-22), and , of course, Judas Iscariot. Can I support the war as a Christian? Yes. Can I support our country having a place like Guantanamo? Absolutely. We confine our sworn enemies for the same reason that we confine rabid dogs: for the public good. And not just our public, either. The world as a whole is safer because Guantanamo exists. I am opposed to torture, but if it saves American lives, it should be an option for those of higher ranks whom we detain.
Of course, Jesus would never have been in the position that our President finds himself. That's because He was neither a military nor a political leader and He had perfect knowledge. He was the propitiation for the sins of the world (I John 2:2). We will never know what He would have done, though He could have called legions of angels to enforce His will had He so wanted. But He didn't. I am first a follower of Christ. Then I am an American citizen. There is very rarely any conflict between them. Should there ever be, I must choose my Lord over my political leaders, or anyone else for that matter. Lastly, I am a conservative out of my moral stances on several issues and my beliefs in small government (on all levels) and in a strong military as well. Reagan was right on so many points, but the one we need the most right now is "peace through strength." The Great Communicator was himself a Christian. Let us now recall and appreciate his wisdom in this powerful quote:
"They tell us that by avoiding a direct confrontation with the enemy he will learn to love us and give up his evil ways. All who oppose this idea are blanket indicted as war-mongers. Well, let us set one thing straight, there is no argument with regard to peace and war. It is cheap demagoguery to suggest that anyone would want to send other people’s sons to war. The only argument is with regard to the best way to avoid war. There is only one sure way –- surrender."
- Ronald Reagan, 1964
"Replace the Soviet enemy of the Cold War with the Islamo-fascist enemies of today, and his words still strike a chord."
(Source: Fraley, Is the Reagan Philosophy Dead? http://www.dailytakes.com/?p=1148)
Perhaps Mr. Huckabee could use a refresher course on conservatism.
Then I saw a guy named Hal on the comment spots on here today. He was asking what Jesus would do about all of this. These two topics are closely linked. So now I guess, having mulled this over for a while, I think that I have an answer, but not an easy one.
I am convinced that Mike Huckabee is right in one regard: This is a theological issue. How one views religion will lay the groundwork as to how one builds one's own stance on the war and terrorism. If one accepts that we are infidels for our majority's rejection of Mohammed's claim to be God's only prophet -- which is generally the view among the Islamic terrorists -- then we deserve this treatment. Besides, if they die in this jihad of the all-out slaughter of non-believers, they are guaranteed a spot in the Muslim version of Heaven. This is not only their duty, but it is also their inextinguishable zeal to give their all for the cause.
How Christians (even the sociological "Christians" who have never had a personal experience with Jesus) view their religion, and Christ in particular, will shade their respective views of the war. If one sees Jesus as primarily a peacemaker, then it follows that this one would proclaim that we should bring all of our forces home now. This is particularly true if He is not seen as divine. If one is of the opinion that Jesus would approach the terrorists as He did the moneychangers in the temple, then we should go over there, Ann Coulter-style: " We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity... That's war. And this is war."
(Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/coulter/coulter.shtml "This is War" Sept. 13, 2001)
Admittedly, I am much closer to Miss Coulter's position, so that may color my attitude here. But here is my stance on the war from a Biblical stance: Since I believe that Christ was indeed God, His perfect love and His perfect justice must both be satisfied. His justice is always tempered with His mercy. Yes, He would stop the violence, but I do believe that He would keep the unrepentant in a place where they could do no more harm. And remember that He did have people reject Him: the rich, young ruler who could not give up his possessions (Mark 10:17-22), the crowd at the synagogue when He read from the book of Isaiah (Luke 4:16-22), and , of course, Judas Iscariot. Can I support the war as a Christian? Yes. Can I support our country having a place like Guantanamo? Absolutely. We confine our sworn enemies for the same reason that we confine rabid dogs: for the public good. And not just our public, either. The world as a whole is safer because Guantanamo exists. I am opposed to torture, but if it saves American lives, it should be an option for those of higher ranks whom we detain.
Of course, Jesus would never have been in the position that our President finds himself. That's because He was neither a military nor a political leader and He had perfect knowledge. He was the propitiation for the sins of the world (I John 2:2). We will never know what He would have done, though He could have called legions of angels to enforce His will had He so wanted. But He didn't. I am first a follower of Christ. Then I am an American citizen. There is very rarely any conflict between them. Should there ever be, I must choose my Lord over my political leaders, or anyone else for that matter. Lastly, I am a conservative out of my moral stances on several issues and my beliefs in small government (on all levels) and in a strong military as well. Reagan was right on so many points, but the one we need the most right now is "peace through strength." The Great Communicator was himself a Christian. Let us now recall and appreciate his wisdom in this powerful quote:
"They tell us that by avoiding a direct confrontation with the enemy he will learn to love us and give up his evil ways. All who oppose this idea are blanket indicted as war-mongers. Well, let us set one thing straight, there is no argument with regard to peace and war. It is cheap demagoguery to suggest that anyone would want to send other people’s sons to war. The only argument is with regard to the best way to avoid war. There is only one sure way –- surrender."
- Ronald Reagan, 1964
"Replace the Soviet enemy of the Cold War with the Islamo-fascist enemies of today, and his words still strike a chord."
(Source: Fraley, Is the Reagan Philosophy Dead? http://www.dailytakes.com/?p=1148)
Perhaps Mr. Huckabee could use a refresher course on conservatism.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Charlie Wilson did what?
My friends, we are now witnessing the re-writing of history(again) by Hollywood (again). It seems that somehow we all got things mixed up and accidentally gave someone else the credit for our side winning the Cold War. And, of course, the guy who got ripped off was a Democrat. He was Charlie Wilson, a Representative from the Second Congressional District of the great state of Texas. According to Mike Nichols, the film's director, it was Wilson who won us such a great victory.
Please allow me to tell you why he had to be Hollywood's choice to lead us to victory. First and foremost, he was a Democrat. The film was written by Aaron Sorkin. You know, the guy who sanitized the Clinton White House and turned it into a little program called The West Wing. This was Sorkin's re-writing of history as it was happening. Since we all seem to have forgotten the 1980's, I guess they figured that they were safe. If you ever watch his TV show, you soon realize that Sorkin has very little regard for the Grand Old Party and its members. That is the overwhelming attitude of Hollywood.
The second reason they like Representative Wilson is that he is their kind of guy. He is a "good ol' boy who liked company in a hot tub and was rarely found without a drink in his hand," according to Roger Ebert. (Source: Winston-Salem Journal, Relish [Entertainment Insert], Thursday, December 20, 2007, p. 8) Clint O'Connor adds the following: "a rootin'-tootin', hard-drinking, excessive womanizer, helped funnel vast sums of money and arms to Afghan fighters in the 1980s, thus helping defeat the Soviet army." (Source:
Now isn't that the picture of a leader who inspires confidence. Of course, these Hollywood types are the same ones who were oddly silent about the whole Stained Blue Dress Incident of the Clinton years. Of course, Bill was just another "lovable good ol' boy," so like Wilson, all would eventually be forgiven, including his perjury to a federal grand jury. But when Reagan was accused of doing what Wilson did actually do, according to the film, he was the one of the worst men on the planet, regardless that the President can write foreign policy and Congressmen can't. But why quibble over what the Constitution says about the system of checks and balances? If a Democrat wants to ignore them, it's fine, but only when a Democrat does it. Republicans don't get those kind of passes in Hollywood.
The third reason is that Charlie is, according to A. O. Scott, "a liberal as well as a libertine." Also according to Scott, his choice of lady friends is their kind of girl, too: "Joanne Herring, a right-wing Houston socialite who loves Jesus and martinis and hates Communism. She is a splendid American contradiction, standing up for liberty and godliness while getting into bed (literally) with a bachelor congressman and (metaphorically) with President Zia ([played by] Om Puri), the military ruler of Pakistan." She says she loves Jesus, but she loves Charlie, too, so that seems to make everything all right with the Hollywood crowd. Aside from her questionable political leanings, she loves sex, alcohol, and Jesus, but I'm sure not in that order and she has, I'm sure, a well-developed sense of her moral foundation as well. And, being a good friend of the hero of a liberal, quasi-historical piece, she gets the rewards of notoriety and Julia Roberts portraying her in the film. The late, great Ronald Reagan just gets his rightful legacy stolen, but he's one of the bad Republicans, so Hollywood approves.
I guess the worst part of this for me were the following parting shots at the fortieth President. A. O. Scott commented, “The good guys are the ones who know how to have a good time, and who counter the somber certainties of totalitarianism with the conviction that fun is woven into the fabric of freedom.” So if Reagan had only had the Soviets over for a dinner party -- with the emphasis on party -- then we all would have had a rollicking good time as we won the Cold War. Don't you just hope that all the public servants have fun when going off to do the things they have no authority to be doing in the first place? As long as they have fun, that's all that matters. Then came Clint O'Connor again: "Charlie Wilson's War is the most American of movies, brimming with a can-do swagger that we could only hope for from our politicians.” Umm... Clint... we had that when Reagan gave us something that Barry Goldwater used to say: "peace through strength." Ronald Reagan did have a can-do attitude, but was modest enough not to swagger. And, by the way, when American Republican presidents do swagger, they get accused of having an "arrogant bunker mentality." But the one that made me mad was Roger Ebert: "The next time you hear about Reagan ending [the Cold War], ask yourself if he ever heard of Charlie Wilson."
Ah... Roger, we won the Cold War not because the Russians lost in Afghanistan, though it did help, but because Ronald Reagan scared the crap out of them. After four years of Carter's inept, mamby-pamby tenderfoot approach to foreign relations, along came a man who would not back down because he believed in America and her strength. They knew that Reagan would have the intestinal fortitude to stand up to them to the very end. They were afraid of him and were forced to respect him. So, Roger, I think you know that I'm giving you a "thumb's down." Comment on the movies, the acting, directing, and lighting, and whatnot and whether or not you like them. Some of us already know that you dislike Republicans. And I'm sure that Reagan had heard of Charlie Wilson just like I'm sure that you would love, like the vast majority of the entertainment world, to take this away from Reagan, but you can't.
Please allow me to tell you why he had to be Hollywood's choice to lead us to victory. First and foremost, he was a Democrat. The film was written by Aaron Sorkin. You know, the guy who sanitized the Clinton White House and turned it into a little program called The West Wing. This was Sorkin's re-writing of history as it was happening. Since we all seem to have forgotten the 1980's, I guess they figured that they were safe. If you ever watch his TV show, you soon realize that Sorkin has very little regard for the Grand Old Party and its members. That is the overwhelming attitude of Hollywood.
The second reason they like Representative Wilson is that he is their kind of guy. He is a "good ol' boy who liked company in a hot tub and was rarely found without a drink in his hand," according to Roger Ebert. (Source: Winston-Salem Journal, Relish [Entertainment Insert], Thursday, December 20, 2007, p. 8) Clint O'Connor adds the following: "a rootin'-tootin', hard-drinking, excessive womanizer, helped funnel vast sums of money and arms to Afghan fighters in the 1980s, thus helping defeat the Soviet army." (Source:
http://www.cleveland.com/movies/index.ssf/2007/12/swagger_and_bravado_aside_a_gr.html )
Now isn't that the picture of a leader who inspires confidence. Of course, these Hollywood types are the same ones who were oddly silent about the whole Stained Blue Dress Incident of the Clinton years. Of course, Bill was just another "lovable good ol' boy," so like Wilson, all would eventually be forgiven, including his perjury to a federal grand jury. But when Reagan was accused of doing what Wilson did actually do, according to the film, he was the one of the worst men on the planet, regardless that the President can write foreign policy and Congressmen can't. But why quibble over what the Constitution says about the system of checks and balances? If a Democrat wants to ignore them, it's fine, but only when a Democrat does it. Republicans don't get those kind of passes in Hollywood.
The third reason is that Charlie is, according to A. O. Scott, "a liberal as well as a libertine." Also according to Scott, his choice of lady friends is their kind of girl, too: "Joanne Herring, a right-wing Houston socialite who loves Jesus and martinis and hates Communism. She is a splendid American contradiction, standing up for liberty and godliness while getting into bed (literally) with a bachelor congressman and (metaphorically) with President Zia ([played by] Om Puri), the military ruler of Pakistan." She says she loves Jesus, but she loves Charlie, too, so that seems to make everything all right with the Hollywood crowd. Aside from her questionable political leanings, she loves sex, alcohol, and Jesus, but I'm sure not in that order and she has, I'm sure, a well-developed sense of her moral foundation as well. And, being a good friend of the hero of a liberal, quasi-historical piece, she gets the rewards of notoriety and Julia Roberts portraying her in the film. The late, great Ronald Reagan just gets his rightful legacy stolen, but he's one of the bad Republicans, so Hollywood approves.
I guess the worst part of this for me were the following parting shots at the fortieth President. A. O. Scott commented, “The good guys are the ones who know how to have a good time, and who counter the somber certainties of totalitarianism with the conviction that fun is woven into the fabric of freedom.” So if Reagan had only had the Soviets over for a dinner party -- with the emphasis on party -- then we all would have had a rollicking good time as we won the Cold War. Don't you just hope that all the public servants have fun when going off to do the things they have no authority to be doing in the first place? As long as they have fun, that's all that matters. Then came Clint O'Connor again: "Charlie Wilson's War is the most American of movies, brimming with a can-do swagger that we could only hope for from our politicians.” Umm... Clint... we had that when Reagan gave us something that Barry Goldwater used to say: "peace through strength." Ronald Reagan did have a can-do attitude, but was modest enough not to swagger. And, by the way, when American Republican presidents do swagger, they get accused of having an "arrogant bunker mentality." But the one that made me mad was Roger Ebert: "The next time you hear about Reagan ending [the Cold War], ask yourself if he ever heard of Charlie Wilson."
Ah... Roger, we won the Cold War not because the Russians lost in Afghanistan, though it did help, but because Ronald Reagan scared the crap out of them. After four years of Carter's inept, mamby-pamby tenderfoot approach to foreign relations, along came a man who would not back down because he believed in America and her strength. They knew that Reagan would have the intestinal fortitude to stand up to them to the very end. They were afraid of him and were forced to respect him. So, Roger, I think you know that I'm giving you a "thumb's down." Comment on the movies, the acting, directing, and lighting, and whatnot and whether or not you like them. Some of us already know that you dislike Republicans. And I'm sure that Reagan had heard of Charlie Wilson just like I'm sure that you would love, like the vast majority of the entertainment world, to take this away from Reagan, but you can't.
Friday, December 21, 2007
I normally don't quote Elton John, but...
"I have been deceived."
During last night's bout with insomnia, I decided to explore more of Fred Thompson's stances. Not only did I learn more about my favorite former senator from Tennessee, but I found out that I have been backing the wrong guy this whole time. From the beginning of this race, which now seems like eons ago, I knew that I would be backing one of two people: Mike Huckabee or Fred Thompson. Since I never thought that Fred was going to get into the race, Huckabee became my man for the 2008 run.
Then came Huckabee's comments on closing Guantanamo so that more of our international neighbors will need to like us again. So I decided to do some more digging. According to the October 9th Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, the tax burden for the state of Arkansas nearly doubled under Mike Huckabee's administration. Thompson, on the other hand, helped pass tax cut after tax cut during his time in Congress.
Unbelievably, Mike Huckabee likes the idea of letting illegal aliens pay in-state rates at Arkansas colleges, as well as giving them voting rights and helping them get public assistance as well, according to a report by the AP in February 2005. He referred to those who opposed the plan as "bigots who think there's a real problem." I think I might have gone into shock at this point. Somehow, illegal aliens voting is now okay, Mike?
Senator Thompson is for cutting federal funds to sanctuary cities (and I am ready to sharpen the scissors for that and nominate San Francisco for the first cut) and he's for toughening the borders, which this Congress and the two prior should have already done! I think he's gotten the message that Representative Tom Tancredo has been giving us for years. Thompson gets that this is an issue of national security.
Since I am a big supporter of the 2nd Amendment -- even though I do not personally own a gun, mind you -- Thompson is my choice. I really can't say how Governor Huckabee feels about the right to bear arms, but I can support Thompson's stand on the matter. My "neighbor" from Tennessee is on the record as believing, and I totally agree, that the "assault" weapon ban was a bad idea. The term "assault" is never really defined, so I guess it means that if it frightens someone by its appearance, then it has "assaulted" them. All joking aside, the "assault weapons ban" was a sham at best and at worst a calculated power grab by the "no-guns-ever" crowd.
"Military-style semi-automatic firearms (so-called assault weapons) do not differ materially from non-military style semi-automatic firearms (one bullet is fired for each pull of the trigger) and are no more powerful than other semi-automatic weapons. Further, a bullet fired from a semi-automatic weapon is no more powerful than one of the same caliber fired from a corresponding non-semi-automatic handgun, rifle, or shotgun." (Source: "Assault weapons," which can be found at: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html.)
Now for the part that shocked me the most, the social issues. Remember, that Huckabee is an ordained Baptist minister and I am a Baptist seminarian, so I was of the opinion that we would be simpatico here, of all places. Was I ever in for a surprise. While he was the lieutenant governor of Arkansas, he supported the idea of each state deciding the abortion issue for itself. This is a recipe for a second Supreme Court battle. Thompson wants to go the other, more logical route: overturning Roe v. Wade, which he calls "bad law and bad medical science." I believe that Thompson is right on all counts. While Thompson definitely opposes both abortion and its public funding, Huckabee started a private fund so that Arkansas' Medicaid recipients could get the abortions that they wanted. Admittedly, these abortions were only for victims of rape or incest, according to the New York Times, dated August 14, 1996.
Now, Fred Thompson has not called for the closing of Guantanamo and I doubt he ever will. Here is what he said on his Hands Down! Tour across Iowa:“The detainees at Guantanamo are not American citizens, they are enemies of this nation and they do not enjoy the rights of American citizens. And they are not entitled to habeas corpus protection.” Finally, someone actually said it! I have been making that point for months!
And just as I wrote in my blog yesterday, he agreed: "I don't know if [Mike Huckabee] realizes this or not, when [the Guantanamo detainees] touch American soil, they're gonna get rights they would otherwise not have." I have been saying this for months as well! Here I finally find a man with whom I can agree on such an important issue!
Well, I was wrong. Mr. Thompson, I owe you an apology. And I am going to do everything I can to help your campaign. I am sorry I doubted you and I sincerely hope that you can forgive me. You are now this conservative's choice for the Republican nomination and ultimately for the President of the United States. For me, the Huckaboom has ended.
During last night's bout with insomnia, I decided to explore more of Fred Thompson's stances. Not only did I learn more about my favorite former senator from Tennessee, but I found out that I have been backing the wrong guy this whole time. From the beginning of this race, which now seems like eons ago, I knew that I would be backing one of two people: Mike Huckabee or Fred Thompson. Since I never thought that Fred was going to get into the race, Huckabee became my man for the 2008 run.
Then came Huckabee's comments on closing Guantanamo so that more of our international neighbors will need to like us again. So I decided to do some more digging. According to the October 9th Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, the tax burden for the state of Arkansas nearly doubled under Mike Huckabee's administration. Thompson, on the other hand, helped pass tax cut after tax cut during his time in Congress.
Unbelievably, Mike Huckabee likes the idea of letting illegal aliens pay in-state rates at Arkansas colleges, as well as giving them voting rights and helping them get public assistance as well, according to a report by the AP in February 2005. He referred to those who opposed the plan as "bigots who think there's a real problem." I think I might have gone into shock at this point. Somehow, illegal aliens voting is now okay, Mike?
Senator Thompson is for cutting federal funds to sanctuary cities (and I am ready to sharpen the scissors for that and nominate San Francisco for the first cut) and he's for toughening the borders, which this Congress and the two prior should have already done! I think he's gotten the message that Representative Tom Tancredo has been giving us for years. Thompson gets that this is an issue of national security.
Since I am a big supporter of the 2nd Amendment -- even though I do not personally own a gun, mind you -- Thompson is my choice. I really can't say how Governor Huckabee feels about the right to bear arms, but I can support Thompson's stand on the matter. My "neighbor" from Tennessee is on the record as believing, and I totally agree, that the "assault" weapon ban was a bad idea. The term "assault" is never really defined, so I guess it means that if it frightens someone by its appearance, then it has "assaulted" them. All joking aside, the "assault weapons ban" was a sham at best and at worst a calculated power grab by the "no-guns-ever" crowd.
"Military-style semi-automatic firearms (so-called assault weapons) do not differ materially from non-military style semi-automatic firearms (one bullet is fired for each pull of the trigger) and are no more powerful than other semi-automatic weapons. Further, a bullet fired from a semi-automatic weapon is no more powerful than one of the same caliber fired from a corresponding non-semi-automatic handgun, rifle, or shotgun." (Source: "Assault weapons," which can be found at: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html.)
Now for the part that shocked me the most, the social issues. Remember, that Huckabee is an ordained Baptist minister and I am a Baptist seminarian, so I was of the opinion that we would be simpatico here, of all places. Was I ever in for a surprise. While he was the lieutenant governor of Arkansas, he supported the idea of each state deciding the abortion issue for itself. This is a recipe for a second Supreme Court battle. Thompson wants to go the other, more logical route: overturning Roe v. Wade, which he calls "bad law and bad medical science." I believe that Thompson is right on all counts. While Thompson definitely opposes both abortion and its public funding, Huckabee started a private fund so that Arkansas' Medicaid recipients could get the abortions that they wanted. Admittedly, these abortions were only for victims of rape or incest, according to the New York Times, dated August 14, 1996.
Now, Fred Thompson has not called for the closing of Guantanamo and I doubt he ever will. Here is what he said on his Hands Down! Tour across Iowa:“The detainees at Guantanamo are not American citizens, they are enemies of this nation and they do not enjoy the rights of American citizens. And they are not entitled to habeas corpus protection.” Finally, someone actually said it! I have been making that point for months!
And just as I wrote in my blog yesterday, he agreed: "I don't know if [Mike Huckabee] realizes this or not, when [the Guantanamo detainees] touch American soil, they're gonna get rights they would otherwise not have." I have been saying this for months as well! Here I finally find a man with whom I can agree on such an important issue!
Well, I was wrong. Mr. Thompson, I owe you an apology. And I am going to do everything I can to help your campaign. I am sorry I doubted you and I sincerely hope that you can forgive me. You are now this conservative's choice for the Republican nomination and ultimately for the President of the United States. For me, the Huckaboom has ended.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
An unfortunate start to my blog...
As it says in my blog info, I am an evangelical conservative. And I may as well say that I am a Republican. I don't consider myself a one-issue voter, but the War on Terror -- and, yes, liberals, it is a war and even the terrorists know that -- is pretty much at the top of my concerns. My social and political views are also very conservative. So I thought that these issues would guide me through the coming election cycle.
I thought that I had found my guy to support for the nation's top elected official in the 2008 run. He was a former governor I had liked for several years before he had announced his candidacy for President. We shared a common faith and I liked his views on terrorism as not just an ideological problem, but also a theological one. He supported a flat tax. And he's a hilarious guy who likes old rock 'n' roll. He is an ordained Baptist minister and I am a Baptist seminarian. We were, I believed, like political soul mates, two apples on the same tree. I was ready to go find him and have my picture made with him for this blog. Mike Huckabee was my choice to lead this great nation.
Then came that statement.
"American foreign policy needs to change its tone and attitude, open up, and reach out. The Bush administration's arrogant bunker mentality has been counterproductive at home and abroad. My administration will recognize that the United States' main fight today does not pit us against the world but pits the world against the terrorists."
And that came after this one:
"I’ve been to Guantanamo, I was there, I guess it’s been about a year and a half ago. I think the problem with Guantanamo is not in that its facilities are inadequate. It’s the symbol that it represents. It’s clearly become a symbol to the rest of the world as a place that has become problematic for us as a nation. I was quite frankly impressed with the quality of the facilities and even the attention to care that was given to the detainees, but that aside, it doesn’t alter that Guantanamo to the rest of the world is a symbol that is not in our best interests to continue pursuing."
This has caught me completely off-guard. He wants the world to like us more, so he'll close Gitmo. Is he joining with Hillary and her call to end "cowboy diplomacy"? I have several problems with all of this. Mainly, "cowboy diplomacy" has worked pretty well. Al-Quaeda is on the run and are now having to release their home movies or audio tapes to communicate with their following. Also, the surge is working. (You can tell this by the fact that most of the major media is now pretty much ignoring Iraq. No good news from the front is exactly what they want.) Do you really buy into the theory that Qaddafi was already considering a change in his policies just when we just happened to be launching Shock and Awe? And that the Libyan dictator came to the realization apart from that? If you buy that, then I have some carbon credits you can buy, too.
Add this question, too: Have we been attacked since September 11, 2001? No, but we have uncovered attempts that people with the same motivations as those cowards and stopped them before they could bring the plans to fruition.
Arab culture only respects one thing: strength. With all our diplomatic yakkity-yak, we are perceived by them as weak. When we back up our threats with actual enforcement, they suddenly see us as serious people and want to talk again to keep us from attacking them again. Reagan was right: peace through strength.
I thought that I had found my guy to support for the nation's top elected official in the 2008 run. He was a former governor I had liked for several years before he had announced his candidacy for President. We shared a common faith and I liked his views on terrorism as not just an ideological problem, but also a theological one. He supported a flat tax. And he's a hilarious guy who likes old rock 'n' roll. He is an ordained Baptist minister and I am a Baptist seminarian. We were, I believed, like political soul mates, two apples on the same tree. I was ready to go find him and have my picture made with him for this blog. Mike Huckabee was my choice to lead this great nation.
Then came that statement.
"American foreign policy needs to change its tone and attitude, open up, and reach out. The Bush administration's arrogant bunker mentality has been counterproductive at home and abroad. My administration will recognize that the United States' main fight today does not pit us against the world but pits the world against the terrorists."
And that came after this one:
"I’ve been to Guantanamo, I was there, I guess it’s been about a year and a half ago. I think the problem with Guantanamo is not in that its facilities are inadequate. It’s the symbol that it represents. It’s clearly become a symbol to the rest of the world as a place that has become problematic for us as a nation. I was quite frankly impressed with the quality of the facilities and even the attention to care that was given to the detainees, but that aside, it doesn’t alter that Guantanamo to the rest of the world is a symbol that is not in our best interests to continue pursuing."
This has caught me completely off-guard. He wants the world to like us more, so he'll close Gitmo. Is he joining with Hillary and her call to end "cowboy diplomacy"? I have several problems with all of this. Mainly, "cowboy diplomacy" has worked pretty well. Al-Quaeda is on the run and are now having to release their home movies or audio tapes to communicate with their following. Also, the surge is working. (You can tell this by the fact that most of the major media is now pretty much ignoring Iraq. No good news from the front is exactly what they want.) Do you really buy into the theory that Qaddafi was already considering a change in his policies just when we just happened to be launching Shock and Awe? And that the Libyan dictator came to the realization apart from that? If you buy that, then I have some carbon credits you can buy, too.
Add this question, too: Have we been attacked since September 11, 2001? No, but we have uncovered attempts that people with the same motivations as those cowards and stopped them before they could bring the plans to fruition.
Arab culture only respects one thing: strength. With all our diplomatic yakkity-yak, we are perceived by them as weak. When we back up our threats with actual enforcement, they suddenly see us as serious people and want to talk again to keep us from attacking them again. Reagan was right: peace through strength.
And if the rest of the world is uncomfortable with us having a place like Guantanamo, perhaps they are the ones who need to re-evaluate their stance on terrorism, because as long as we are housing them and detaining them on taxpayer money, the world is a much safer place. And we aren't charging anyone money for keeping them up, either. We have chosen to go this route alone because I don't think any other nations are going to volunteer for this aspect of the war. But because there might be some form of discomfort that the bleeding hearts might find distasteful, then we should open wide the gate and give them the freedom. What most people fail to realize is that they will use that freedom to try to launch yet another attack on us.
Second, where on God's green earth are we going to put them? Bring them here to American soil and -- POOF! -- the Constitution suddenly applies to them too, regardless of the fact that they are not citizens and they were caught trying to defeat American troops. And then our system requires that they all get lawyers and access to our courts, at our expense, I might add. Can we even think about funding that? Because I doubt they have detainment and criminal defense coverage in their terrorist insurance policies. Not to mention, getting to America was probably a goal of theirs anyway and would be an incalculable risk to our country. And do I hear any volunteers to host these guys in their prisons? We have more than enough American prisoners, so why do we need to further burden ourselves? And do we really want these people, so filled with murderous hate for us, near any of our citizens? Well, do you want them close to you or those you hold dear? And don't go suggesting other areas of the country for the job. If you're not willing to do it yourself, then don't volunteer other people for the task.
Are we going to, as Saudi Arabia foolishly did, release them on the promise of not attacking us anymore? By the way, since we here in the Great Satan are pretty much all infidels, promises to us are not required to be kept. That ought to help them agree to our terms more readily.
This "go-it-alone, bunker mentality" is totally necessary for the successful prosecution of the war. Terrorists are not going to hold press conferences before they attack. We have to stop them before they attack. If you want to catch them in the act of plotting, then you have to think like they do and act proactively work to stop their actions. There is no time to stop and make up a reasonable plan so that no one else is offended by the tactics. Saving innocent lives should be justification enough. But then again, I guess that's just not enough for some people.
Now, if Mike Huckabee is for closing Guantanamo AND using summary executions to accomplish that goal, that method I can support... maybe a bit too aggressively. The world would be offended, but the upside is that the world would be just as safe from those terrorists. But I doubt that he'd support this method of closure.
I just can't believe it. So important, but he's on the wrong side of it. Unless Mike Huckabee changes his mind on this, I think I will switch to Fred Thompson, but I am still of the opinion that he should have started much earlier. Be that as it may, he still shares my core values and will be a soild conservative.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
