The Republican Evaluator

The Election.

2008-11-05T21:43:00.000-06:00

Frankly, I'm disappointed. But I wouldn't have to write this note to tell you that. If you're reading this, then you probably already knew that Obama wasn't my choice. I also wouldn't need to write a note to say that I'm sure many of you are also pretty disappointed in outcome of this election, just like I am.

This is not to express my disappointment, nor is it to put on display the fact that many people share my feelings right now. There are countless articles, away messages, facebook statuses, radio broadcasts, blogs, and more to tell you that this isn't the outcome many people were hoping for. No, that's not at all the point. Rather, this is to tell another side and possibly help frame this election in perspective and context.

First, we have to remember that although we may be dissatisfied, Barack Obama is going to be our next President. He is not just the Democrats' President, just as John McCain would not have been merely the Republicans' President. No, Barack Obama is the United States' President. America made its choice. Sure, there were many voters who you could say were hoodwinked by the media, taken by the image of a young "rockstar" president, or voting for him based on color. At the same time, there were millions of people who voted for him because of his ideas. Regardless of whether or not you agree with Barack Obama, he has been elected.

Second, we need to see the many good things that this election represents. It represents freedom, for however long we fight for it. We should be very grateful that we live in a nation where everyone has a voice. We must also realize the massive number of people who were never involved before and have now taken notice and an interest in our Nation's future. Amid all of the talk about ACORN and voter registration fraud, I think it is sometimes overlooked that millions of people chose to become involved in our government in these last two years. This is not something to overlook, but something for which to be very thankful. And whether or not you agree with the candidate himself, it is something to be celebrated that our Country has progressed to the point where race does not mean a black man has any less of a chance than anyone else to fill the Nation's highest office. Sure, I would have preferred someone like Alan Keyes, Condoleeza Rice, or Michael Steele be the candidate to showcase our progress on that front, but the fact remains that our integration of all peoples and our recognition that everyone should have the equal opportunity to work hard and achieve their dreams is something to celebrate.

Third, the beauty of government by-the-people is also its weakness - it means that sometimes the minority just has to accept the decision made and move on. And now, those of us who did not support Barack Obama must do the same thing. Barack Obama will be the next President. Accept it. We would expect no less of those on the other side had John McCain won. Here are a few things that will not happen:

- There will not be an impeachment
- There will not be a violent, physical revolution
- There will not be an assassination
- There will not be some mass movement of people leaving the country to live in Switzerland

Finally, as crazy as this seems, Barack Obama just might be a good set of political cardiac paddles for conservatism. Many members of the GOP have strayed away from our conservative principles to the point where "conservative" is merely a word to put in campaign ads. I'm not saying that conservatives have all been wiped from the Republican Party, but I am saying we have a lot of work ahead of us. In recent years, "conservatives" have become so moderate that it's sometimes hard to tell them from the liberals. I think one major factor was we had power, and we were greedy. We allowed ourselves to slip into the same special-interest-driven politics that we were supposed to stop. I like the way John McCain put it:

"We were elected to change Washington - and Washington changed us."

In this primary election, we saw the Evangelical Christians finally become a sizable force in politics again. While we didn't win, the question that was asked by the media quickly became "Who will the evangelicals vote for?"

It seems as though you could call yesterday a crushing blow for Conservatives, but it wasn't. In the words of Mike Huckabee:

"Politics is not an event, but a process."

We did not lose yesterday, it was merely a turnover on downs, and it's now the Democrats' turn with the ball. It was merely another step in an endless fight for our beliefs. We've come a long way, but we can't stop. We must continue fighting and take our progress further.

So how does that translate into action?

1. We should pray for our Nation, and especially for Barack Obama.

We are instructed in Scripture to do so. And especially with so much at stake, we have to remember that God is in control above all Presidents, Governments, and other powers.

First Timothy 2:1-4: I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone—for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

2. Don't become your own enemy.

It's tempting to lash out at others and blame people on both sides for the results. It's also tempting to make rash statements like "I'm moving to Switzerland," or "I'm never voting again," or "We are now the United Soviet States of America." None of those are true, so you are just wasting your time and energy.

Crises are not important. What shows character and integrity is how we respond to problems when they arise. So let's show some class in our responses to not getting our way.

3. Don't become disinterested.

There is a lot of work left to do. Take a break, yes, but take the irritation and frustration you have about losing this election, and translate it in energy to be used for winning the next one. For now, that means educating people about why lower taxes, limited government, free trade, rights for the unborn, the sanctity of marriage, and strong national defense are all good policies. In the somewhat near future, I'll be posting a lot of information about specific tools to help with that effort.

It also means finding more candidates, bills, and efforts to help with. In just two years, we have an opportunity to take back the majority of Congress, but we have to work hard at it. This presidential campaign was two solid years of media, but the campaigns themselves were started in 2004-2005. Work to stay involved, and opportunities to help will present themselves.

This Presidency is designed to change often. We did not just elect a new dictator, but just the next person in line for this job. In 30,040 hours, we will know the results of the next Presidential election.

Those hours are already counting down, and every second will count. Spend that time convincing others of the Conservative Principles that Ronald Reagan espoused, so we will be ready with an army of supporters when the time comes.

One more good quote...

"Be the change you wish to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi

Work hard. Don't give up. Politics is a process, and the day we stop fighting is the day we lose.

God Bless,
- Andy Hudson

Why Candidates' Positions on Stopping Abortion are an End-All for Me

2007-11-15T13:45:00.000-06:00

I've talked about it a lot, but words can't really express why it's of utmost importance to me - more so than Iraq, or taxes, smaller government, etc.

As pointed out by Greg Cunningham,

"Abortion represents an evil so inexpressible that words fail us when attempting to describe its horror. Until abortion is seen, it will never be understood."

However, don't not watch this video just because you don't want to be uncomfortable. Ignorance may be bliss, but ignoring evil doesn't make it disappear.

WARNING - The following video contains graphic post-abortion pictures.

Chuck Baldwin and Mike Huckabee - The Rest of the Story

2007-11-12T16:07:00.000-06:00

Largely because of his recent surge of support, GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee is now facing increasing criticism from liberals as well as his opponents on the conservative side. One notable enemy of the former Arkansas governor is Chuck Baldwin (Baldwin was the Libertarian Party vice presidential candidate in 2004. He is also a pastor of a church in Pensacola, and an outspoken conspiracy theorist.) In a recent article, Baldwin lambasted Huckabee on the issues of illegal immigration and taxes.

If imitation is the highest form of flattery, then Chuck Baldwin certainly seems to be paying some compliments to our founding fathers, as Mr. Baldwin’s article spotlights the idea that he surely holds his own “truths to be self-evident” – which might explain why he didn’t bother to research what he was saying.

The purpose of this article is to give you the other side of the story. A lot of the arguments used in Baldwin’s article could have been based on a hint of truth, but for the most part were just extravagant stretching of the truth or blatant lies. One example occurs within the first paragraph of his article. He contends that Christian conservative leaders (with the exception of Janet Folger) are not, and should not be, behind Huckabee. This falls into the “blatant lies” category. On the contrary, the majority of the Christian Conservative leaders that have endorsed a candidate have leaned toward Huckabee.

You can view a list of the Evangelical Conservative Leaders’ endorsements by candidate here.

Did he “Leave the conservative movement in shambles” in Arkansas?

The second claim in the article actually comes from Phyllis Schlafly, the president and founder of the Eagle Forum. She is quoted in the article as saying “He [Gov. Huckabee] destroyed the conservative movement in Arkansas, and left the Republican Party in shambles.”

This is a quote that has been circulated around the internet by some as if it were divinely inspired word that condemned Huckabee from ever becoming a conservative choice for Republican voters. Let me be very clear, I have a deep respect for Mrs. Schlafly, but her claim doesn’t carry much weight until she is willing to elaborate (which I have not seen) on how exactly there was damage done to the conservative movement in Arkansas.

One interesting thing to consider on this subject is the fact that there was no “conservative movement” in Arkansas before Huckabee became the governor. He was the third Republican to be elected into executive office in Arkansas since 1874. During the time that Huckabee was governor, the number of Republicans in the Arkansas legislature tripled. And let’s not forget that Huckabee won 4 elections in the democratic-stronghold state, all while being campaigned against by the Clintons. It seems pretty clear that rather than being left in shambles, conservatism saw a dramatic increase in Arkansas during Huckabee’s time as governor.

John Fund’s Political Fantasy

Another interesting thing was the article in the Wall Street Journal by John Fund – an article that Baldwin quotes as if it were Scripture. However, I won’t waste time beating a dead horse, as Fund’s erroneous claims have been thoroughly debunked in other articles (if you’d like to see them, you can see Huckabee’s direct response, or read Lucas Roebuck’s rebuttal to the attacks.)

Has Huckabee crossed the border on Illegal Immigration?

The next thing visited in the article is Baldwin’s attacks on Huckabee’s immigration stance. One thing that struck me about this section was that Baldwin did not conceivably give an account of what Huckabee’s immigration stance really is. Rather, he quoted several of the “elites” as they misconstrue the facts of what Huckabee did while in office. Chuck Norris wrote a fantastic rebuttal to these claims.

One of the criticisms thrown around is that Huckabee somehow “supported free scholarships for all illegals.” This simply is not true. What Huckabee did support was that we shouldn’t penalize students who were brought here illegally at a young age. These were students who had been in the school system their entire lives, and had not knowingly committed a crime. Also, there was never any support for “free scholarships for all illegals.” What was supported was that those students described above would be able to compete for the same scholarships as the other students, one additional requirement being that they had to have applied for citizenship.

Huckabee’s stance is very simple. He believes first, that we absolutely must secure the border. It is a national security threat to not know who is in our country, so the flow of illegal immigration must be curtailed. He also believes that any time an illegal immigrant commits a crime here in the United States and is convicted, that they should be deported – no exceptions. Huckabee also supports the training and deployment of 23,000 more border patrol agents, and a fence along the Mexican border. You can read more about his strong position on illegal immigration here.

“Taxes. Taxes is what bwings us togeva, today.” (The Princess Bride, but not quite)

The final big issue that Baldwin’s article berates Huckabee for is taxes. He calls Mike a “Tax and Spender,” a phrase first attributed to Huckabee by the Club for Growth (a.k.a. the Club for Greed) in commercials funded by one of Huckabee’s political opponents from his days in Arkansas. The group claims that Huckabee supported 5 major tax increases, which is simply not true. One of the biggest examples they love to use is the 0.825% sales tax increase, which cost taxpayers more than $400 million a year in order to complete a court-ordered education funding increase.

However, the fact that Chuck Baldwin and the Club for Growth conveniently overlook is that Governor Huckabee refused to sign that tax increase. He [Huckabee] complained that it was “maximum taxes for minimum reform.” Another fact overlooked by those making the attacks is that during this time the Democrats held complete control of the state legislature. That is especially important to remember in this case, because although Mike refused to sign the tax increase, the Democratic super-majority was able to override the Governor, and the tax increase became a law without his signature. That one example explains $400 million of the $550 million in tax increases that Baldwin and the Club for Growth attribute to Mike Huckabee. You can read about the other increases here.

Aside from the tax increases, another overlooked fact is that when not under Court order to increase funding, he cut taxes more than 90 times, including pushing through one of the largest tax cuts in the state’s history. In fact, with the taxes he had control over, he was so fiscally conservative that Americans for Tax Reform (A conservative anti-tax lobbying organization founded in 1985 at the request of Ronald Reagan) awarded Mike Huckabee the “Friend of the Taxpayer” award during his time as Governor.

This begs the question, if Huckabee was a tax-and-spender, maliciously raising taxes left and right to fund his supposedly “liberal big government,” why would he have been re-elected 3 times in a row? Does that sound like the kind of person that a conservative anti-tax lobbyist organization would call a “friend of the taxpayer”?

Clearly, the Club for Growth, as well as Baldwin, are either missing or ignoring the facts. How convenient that their arguments are based on opinion quotes from Huckabee’s political opponents. Regardless of his opponent’s rhetoric and blatant misrepresentation of the facts, Huckabee is a strong conservative who is backed by far more of the leaders of the conservative movement than his opponents.

Running buddies?

In the last few statements of his article, Baldwin claims that Huckabee encourages his supporters to suggest him as a running mate for either Giuliani or Romney. This is an outright lie. Mike Huckabee has never told his supporters that he would run with either candidate. When asked about becoming a running mate for Giuliani, Huckabee has only responded that he is not considering being anyone’s running mate right now, he’s running for President of the United States.

Mike Huckabee is a strong conservative with the record to prove it. He’s had experience making progress with a democrat-controlled legislature, and in each of his elections has beaten the Clinton political machine. Chuck Baldwin, on the other hand, needs to check his facts more carefully before spreading groundless ad-hominem attacks against the one true conservative choice that has a shot of winning the election.

God Bless,
- Andy Hudson

Evangelical Leaders' Endorsements of GOP Candidates

2007-11-12T15:57:00.000-06:00

Here is a list of the candidates that have gotten support from Evangelical Conservatives, and which leaders support each. If I have missed any major endorsements, please let me know and I will add it to the list.

Mike Huckabee Endorsements
* Dr. Rick Warren – Baptist leader
* Baptist leader Rick Scarborough
* Don Wildmon founder/ former President of AFA (American Family Association)
* Randy Alcorn, Christian author
* Justin Taylor (Between Two Worlds)
* Joe Carter (Evangelical Outpost)
* Matthew Anderson (Mere Orthodoxy)
* Chuck Norris
* Mike Farris, President - HSLDA (Home School Legal Defense Association)
* Janet Folger of Faith to Action
* Jack Graham of PrestonWood Baptist Church, Plano, TX
* James Robison, Life Outreach International
* Robert Morris, Pastor of Gateway Church, Dallas.
* Keith Butler, Pastor - Word of Faith International Christian Center in Michigan
* Matthew Staver, Dean of the law school at Liberty University
* Dr. James T. Draper Jr. – Colleyville, Tex.
* Dr. Jerry Vines – Woodstock, Ga.
* Dr. Daniel L. Akin – President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
* Dr. Jay Strack – Orlando, Fla.
* Dr. Billy McCormack – Shreveport, La.
* Stephen Strang, publisher of CHRISTIAN LIFE magazine

Mitt Romney
* Wayne Grudem endorses Mitt Romney
* Bob Jones III also endorses Mitt Romney
* Dr. John Willke, founder of the National Right to Life Committee endorses Romney as well.

Rudy Guiliani
* Pat Robertson now endorses Rudy Guiliani

John McCain
* Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kansas), a favorite among conservatives, endorses John McCain.

Ron Paul
* Former Libertarian Party vice-presidential candidate Dr. Chuck Baldwin
* Former presidential candidate of the Constitution Party, Michael Anthony Peroutka

Fred D. Thompson
* Gary Bauer likes Fred Thompson. He recently sent an email out solely praising him.

Mike Huckabee Endorsements from Political and Evangelical Leaders

2007-11-12T15:55:00.000-06:00

Mike Huckabee Endorsements from Political and Evangelical Leaders

Here's a collection of just a few of the many leaders that support Mike for President.

Evangelicals for Mike Huckabee
Dr. Daniel Akin- President of Southeastern Seminary

Randy Alcorn- Top 50 best selling Christian Author

Matthew Anderson (Mere Orthodoxy)

Keith Butler, Bishop- Word of Faith International Christian Center in Michigan,(His parish in Detroit, MI has some 16,000 members) member of the Arlington Group.

Joe Carter (Evangelical Outpost)

Dr. James T. Draper Jr. – Colleyville, Tex.

Janet Folger- President of Faith To Action and WND journalist

Dr. Jack Graham of PrestonWood Baptist Church

Chuck Norris, toughest man in the world

Dr. Billy McCormack – Shreveport, La.

Robert Morris, Pastor of Gateway Church, Dallas.

James Robison- Life Outreach International

Justin Taylor (Between Two Worlds)

Rick Scarborough- Member of the Arlington Group

Matthew Staver- Dean of Liberty University Law School, head of Liberty Counsel and member of the Arlington group

Dr. Jay Strack – Orlando, Fla.

Dr. Jerry Vines – Woodstock, Ga.

Don Wildmon- founder of AFA, member of the Arlington group.

Unions and organizations:
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM)

Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA)

Huckabee's Arkansas GOP Leadership Team:
Bud Cummins ˆ Former U.S. Attorney

John Paul Hammerschmidt ˆ Former U.S. Congressman

Asa Hutchinson ˆ Former U.S. Congressman

Tim Hutchinson ˆ Former U.S. Senator

Jay Dickey ˆ Former U.S. Congressman

Betty Dickey ˆ Former Chief Justice of Ark. Supreme Court

John Boozman ˆ U.S. Congressman

Dennis Milligan ˆ Arkansas Republican Party Chairman

Gay White ˆ Former First Lady of Arkansas

Lisenne Rockefeller ˆ Widow of the Late Lt. Governor Win Rockefeller

Jim Burnett ˆ Republican National Committeeman & Former NTSB Chairman

Reta Hamilton ˆ Republican National Committeewoman

Phyllis Kincannon ˆ Arkansas Republican Party Activist

Prissy Hickerson ˆ Former Arkansas HighwayCommissioner

Doyle Webb ˆ Former State Senator

Barbara Webb ˆ Former Saline County Prosecutor

Phil Wyrick ˆ Former State Senator

Carolyn Pollan ˆ Former State Representative

Gilbert Baker ˆ State Senator

Sharon Trusty ˆ State Senator

Denny Altes ˆ State Senator

Bill Pritchard ˆ State Senator

Michael Lamoureux ˆState Representative and House Minority Leader

Mark Martin ˆ State Representative

Jim Medley ˆ State Representative

Frank Glidewell ˆ State Representative

Bryan King ˆ State Representative

Beverly Pyle ˆ State Representative

Rick Green ˆSate Representative

Mary Beth Green ˆ Former State Representative

David Haak ˆ Former State Representative

Doug Matayo ˆ Former State Representative

Hoyt Johnson ˆ Former State Representative Candidate

Andy Mayberry ˆ Former U.S. Representative Candidate

Joyce Campbell ˆ Former State Rep. Candidate

Chee Chee Tamburo ˆ Former State Rep. Candidate

Wayne Bowen ˆ Justice of the Peace

Carol Lester ˆ Arkansas County Chairman

Mark Dye ˆ Scott County GOP Chairman

Ladon Copelin ˆ GOP Party Activist

Bernard Mize ˆ Polk County Chair

Billie Sue Hoggard ˆ Former State Representative Candidate

Iowa leaders and elected officials:
Bob Vander Plaats

Danny Carroll

State Senator David Hartsuch

State Representative Carmine Boal

State Representative Dwayne Alons

Bernie McKinley, former Mayor of Waterloo

Bob Andeweg, Urbandale Mayor

Brad Sherman

Matt Reisetter

New Hampshire Elected and Former elected officials
Senator Bob Clegg

Fmr Senator Russell Prescott

Fmr Executive Councilor Dave Wheeler

Representative Dan Dumaine

Representative Frank Emiro

Sheriff Wayne Estes

Hon. Ron Dupuis

Fmr Gubernatorial Candidate Hon Jim Coburn

Representative Jason Bedrick

Fmr Mayor Emile Beaulieu

Representative Sandra Reeves

Representative Nancy Elliot

Fmr Commissioner of Transportation Carol Murray

Fmr Senate Candidate Hon Nancy Wall

Representative Connie Soucy

Londonderry Town Councilor Joe Paradis

State Representative Julie Brown

South Carolina officials
State Senator David Thomas

State Senator Danny Verdin

State Representative Liston Barfield

State Representative Glenn Hamilton

State Representative Keith Kelly

State Representative Rex Rice

Former State Representative Warren Arthur

Dr. George Graham, Former Chairman of the South Carolina Republican Party

Ruth Griffin, former Executive Councilor

Virginia:
William J. Howell, Virginia House of Delegates Speaker

Is it anti-Christian to go to war?

2007-11-01T22:33:00.000-05:00

Is going to war to defend our Nation Biblically justified?

Is there any Biblical basis for war? Is it “anti-Christian” somehow to go to war for the sake of defending our country?

There are those who say that Jesus was a pacifist (though they may not use that word), and that we should follow His example and just love everyone and never go to war with anyone else. After all, in Matthew 26:52, Jesus said: "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword."

However, I believe it is in error to say that Jesus was a pacifist and was against all war. A few things have to be established first.

The context of Matthew 26:52 is very important. In this case, it was Jesus rebuking one of the men with Him because if He did not go with them to be crucified, then the Scriptures wouldn't be fulfilled (Matthew 26:50-54).

Jesus is always in agreement with the Father (John 10:30), so the positions of one of them on war is the position of both. Secondly, God does not change (Malachi 3:6; James 1:17), so it cannot be argued that God used to allow war, but no longer does. With that being said, let’s look at what God says about war…

Has God ever commanded people to sin? Absolutely not, it is against the very nature of God (I Peter 1:16 – 25, I John 1:5, Psalm 98:1, Psalm 145:17, I Samuel 2:2, Isaiah 6:3, John 17:11, Revelation 4:8)

If God commands it, then disobedience is sin, obedience is not.

The reason that I said that is that it is that keeping it in mind is essential for the following examples to be properly understood.

First, David's Mighty Men:

In the Bible we have the accounts of David's Mighty Men - mighty warriors who fought to protect Israel. Notice they aren't called sinners, but rather that the Bible calls them Men of Might.

"These were the chiefs of David's mighty men—they, together with all Israel, gave his kingship strong support to extend it over the whole land, as the Lord had promised" - 1 Chronicles 11:10

And they, once again, killed many, but are not called sinners. Instead, look at what the Bible calls the chief among them:

"Josheb-Basshebeth, a Tahkemonite, was chief of the Three; he raised his spear against eight hundred men, whom he killed in one encounter." - 2 Samuel 23:8

800 men at once! Now if all killing is sin - that's a whole lot of sin right there. But notice what the Bible calls him, not a sinner, but "a Tahkemonite." Look it up, in Hebrew it means

"One who possesses insight and practical wisdom"

Killing 800 men - yet still being one who has insight and is wise. Bear in mind, however, he was not a barbarian that just killed people. Rather, he killed in order to protect.

Let's look at other examples. How about Gideon? God commanded him to lead an army to war in order to protect those who could not otherwise protect themselves.

God also commanded war in many other places in the Bible (1 Samuel 15:3; Joshua 4:13 Numbers 31:2, Deuteronomy 20:16-17, Exodus 17:16, 1 Samuel 15:18, and many others.)

In those cases, war was justified because it was used to stop acts of evil and to protect.

How, then, is it different to fight those who want to kill Americans?

It’s not. The concept is the exact same, we are to protect those who cannot otherwise protect themselves, and while war is never a desirable thing, it is often the only way to stop evil from becoming even greater evil. For example, if Hitler had not been defeated, how many millions more Jews would have been killed?

As for preemptive strikes, it’s the exact same idea. The only difference is that if you see a rattlesnake poised to strike, you do not wait until after it has struck to crush it.

God Bless,
- Andy Hudson

Mike Huckabee Contribution Video!

2007-10-30T22:49:00.000-05:00

Hey,

I just made this video for the Huckabee campaign's contribution efforts, pass it around!

God Bless,
- Andy

2007-10-23T16:58:00.001-05:00

Huckabee YouTube Videos

As you can probably tell already from this site, I am a big Huckabee fan. Here are some of the best YouTube Videos out there supporting Mike for President.

I Like Mike!

"I Heart Huckabee"

"Mike Huckabee vs. Ron Paul on the Surge"

"Huckabee Responds to Evolution Question"

"The Best of Mike Huckabee"

"Mike Huckabee's Integrity"

"Mike Huckabee's Humor"

2007-10-23T15:30:00.000-05:00

Newsweek Says Mike Huckabee is the best GOP Candidate

Despite all of Newsweek's flaws, they have done something very well. They recently published an amazing article examining almost all of the GOP "main" candidates and showing why Mike Huckabee is in fact the best choice.

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

The GOP's Best Bet?

Hope and a common touch: reasons to like Mike Huckabee

By Jonathan Alter

Newsweek Web Exclusive

Updated: 12:25 PM ET Oct 22, 2007

The GOP is in a deep hole and keeps digging. Even after Mike Huckabee won big among attendees at last week's "Values Voters Convention," many evangelicals have been telling the former Arkansas governor—and onetime Baptist minister—that they like him but won't back him because he can't beat Hillary Clinton. They have it exactly backward. He may be the only Republican candidate with a decent chance to beat the Democrats next November.

Huckabee? Yes, Huckabee.

To explain why, let's look at the shortcomings of the other Republican candidates first.

Rudy Giuliani's performance so far has turned the conventional wisdom about him on its head. It was assumed early on that he couldn't win the GOP nomination because of his position on social issues like abortion, gun control and gay rights, but that if he did his moderation would power him to victory in the general election. Now it looks as though he's got a strong chance for the nomination—despite his GOP rivals' best efforts to hammer him for being insufficiently conservative during Sunday night's debate—but would likely fail in November.

While Giuliani appears strong in his native Northeast, his recent pandering to the conservative base will make it hard for him to put states like New York and New Jersey in play. As Gov. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania told Chris Matthews on "Hardball" last week, Giuliani's right-wing positions on Iraq, S-CHIP and the need for anti-abortion Supreme Court justices are all deeply unpopular in Blue States and would be hung around his neck next fall. Meanwhile, a pro-life third-party effort (a greater likelihood whenever Republicans nominate a pro-choice candidate for any major office) would strip away a few crucial points in key states. At a minimum, pro-lifers would stay home.

Most important, Giuliani is a dark candidate running on fear. Americans like light candidates running on hope. Since 1928 the United States has only once elected the darker candidate, Richard Nixon in 1968. But circumstances were quite different then. The unpopular war that year was a problem for the Democratic nominee, Hubert Humphrey—whose "politics of joy" sounded lame in that crazy season. Nixon tried to lighten up in 1968 with the "new Nixon" (just as Giuliani is trying to smile more this year), but his victory and reelection in 1972 were triumphs of the dark side.

This time, Rudy would be forced into the Humphrey role, saddled with the incumbent president's baggage. Running in full-throated support of George Bush's war with Iraq (much less Iran) is not likely to be a crowd-pleaser. And his claim to possess greater experience than his rivals will likely fall flat, considering that no one has ever made it from city hall to the White House without serving in some other office in between. Six long years after 9/11, Rudy's "only thing we have to use is fear itself" strategy will work only if we're attacked again by terrorists. (In that case, of course, all bets are off.)

Mitt Romney at first seemed the most Reaganesque character in the Republican field. But he is running a transparently cynical campaign. (Cynicism can bring success, but only if you can't see it). His flip-flopping is so egregious he makes John Kerry seem like a paragon of principle, and the Democrats now have the money and discipline to exploit the opening. Romney, born in privilege and cosseted throughout his life by his church and corporate America, has no common touch. And his Mormonism would hurt him in some quarters in a general election.

Fred Thompson is not ready for prime time. Unless he gets real good real fast, he would be crushed by any Democrat. He made strides Sunday night—but he's not there yet.

John McCain would do better than the other three, but even if he somehow gets the nomination, he feels a bit like Bob Dole in 1996: an amusing war hero with a good heart and lots of friends in the press who is well past his sell-by date and gets pummeled by a Clinton.

That leaves Huckabee, whose shortage of funds will probably prevent him from being nominated. The schedule is so front-loaded this time that even an impressive showing on January 3 in Iowa (and he's running second there in some recent polls) won't bring him enough money to be fully competitive on Tsunami Tuesday, February 5. And many Republicans have gotten into the habit of viewing lack of money as a character flaw. His only hope is that party leaders come to their senses and recognize that he's their best bet.

Huckabee comes across more hopeful than Giuliani, more believable than Romney, more intelligent than Thompson and fresher than McCain. He would hold the base and capture moderates drawn to his down-home style. His greatest asset is that he alone among the Republicans "speaks American." He connects to his audience with stories and metaphors and a geniality that can't be faked. "I'm conservative but I'm not angry about it," he likes to say, and it's true; his gentle mocking of the intraparty warfare that broke out during the Fox debate—likening it to a "demolition derby"—confirms the point. This was Reagan's secret, and it worked for Huckabee in Arkansas, where he won the votes of independents and Democrats.

The rap on Huckabee is that while he can speak fluently on global affairs, he has no foreign-policy chops. But that might be an advantage in November. Because he lacks Washington experience, Huckabee is the GOP candidate least tied to Iraq, which will remain an albatross for any Republican. And unless you believe 9/11 "changed everything" for American voters (if so, how do you explain 2006?), this election may revert to the norm, which means an emphasis on pocketbook issues. In the Detroit debate on the economy earlier this month, only Huckabee spoke with any passion about the millions of voters left out of the economic expansion. It's trendy now for Republicans to talk about their fiscal principles, but belt-tightening and fealty to Wall Street have never won a presidential election.

Voters in general elections are less ideological than in primaries and more intrigued by a compelling personal narrative. Huckabee's story hits closer to home than any other. After chest pains and a diagnosis of diabetes, he lost more than 100 pounds with diet and exercise. He tells the story with wit and grace (as well as the one about his wife's cancer diagnosis many years ago) and would kill on Oprah. When Huckabee talks about broader health-care issues he does more than brag about Arkansas's success under his leadership. He speaks in a folksy and comprehensible way that would match up well against Hillary's facts and figures or Obama's abstractions. The same holds true on education; his support for large-scale federal support of art and music programs to improve creativity (and thus competitiveness in the global economy) would resonate with millions of voters.

Even on faith and politics, Mike is easy to like. From afar he seemed extreme because he raised his hand in a debate when the candidates were asked en masse if they believed in evolution. But when Bill Maher pressed him to justify that view on his HBO show, Huckabee responded with a nuanced and presentable discussion of the origins of the universe that seemed to pacify even the atheist host. (I found this as well when we discussed the subject some months ago.) He has surely said some wacky right-wing things that could be used against him, but no more than any of the others in the Republican field.

The stridency of today's GOP has blinded the party to the context of this election, which is Bush fatigue. No wonder all the Democrats are using some variation of the line "The era of cowboy diplomacy is over." It is. And the least cowboyish and bombastic Republican will have the best chance a year from now to win the White House. That's Mike Huckabee.

URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/57616

2007-10-23T14:28:00.000-05:00

Chuck Norris Endorses Mike Huckabee

My favorite candidate is Mike Huckabee. I was going to (and probably still will) type out the reasoning behind that decision, and then I read Chuck Norris' reasons for endorsing Huckabee. I was very impressed by it, and agree with everything said in his endorsement, so I decided to repost it here.

You can find the original article at http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58255

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

My choice for president

Posted: October 21, 2007
8:20 p.m. Eastern
By: Chuck Norris

Former Gov. Mike Huckabee

A short time ago, I wrote in jest about what I would do if I am elected president. Of course, that was written all in good fun.

Like most of you, over the summer and into the fall, I've been watching, listening, studying and praying about who could lead this country as our next president.

I won't leave you in suspense. Though Giuliani might be savvy enough to lead people, Fred Thompson wise enough to wade through the tides of politics, McCain tough enough to fight terrorism and Romney business-minded enough to grow our economy, I believe the only one who has all of the characteristics to lead America forward into the future is ex-Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

Newt Gingrich called Mike "very effective, if Huckabee can find money, he will be dramatically competitive almost overnight." Bill Clinton called Huckabee the "only dark horse that's got any kind of chance. He's the best speaker they've got." There is even a pro-Huckabee swell rising among the younger generation.

Who he is (before what he can do)

More than anything he has done or can do, however, it is first who Mike is that impresses me most.

Part of our backward culture is reflected in the fact that we measure and value people by what they do, instead of first who they are. As a result, we nominate charisma, cast votes for articulation and repeatedly elect too many paper-thin corrupt politicians. Of course, I want a president who gets things done, but I first want one who has lived a life of integrity, commitment, truthfulness and respect. Mike is that man.

Mike hasn't lived an isolated, out-of-touch life like so many politicians. He was raised in Hope, Ark., with a dad who was a firefighter and always had a second job. Mike and his sister grew up poor, not privileged. He was the first person in his family to graduate from high school. And he worked two jobs in college and graduated in two-and-a-half years. He is an outdoorsman too – an avid fisherman, hunter and a long-term member of the NRA.

Mike is a committed husband and father. He has always prioritized his family before politics. His wife, two sons and daughter speak his highest praise.

Mike has also faced unique adversity, from helping a young wife endure the trials of spinal cancer to aiding the victims of hurricane Katrina as the governor of Arkansas. He has a heart for helping and will fight for the causes of average citizens. He is known for having a compassionate heart, genuinely caring for all people.

Mike is also a respected and fearless leader, and he does not cower to the cries of any majority or minority. He doesn't abandon his values for what's expedient. Like our Founding Fathers, he's not afraid to stand up for a Creator and against secularist beliefs. At the same time, he doesn't fear offending Christian leaders who give up their values in pursuit of electing their "team leader" just like everyone else.

A track record toward the presidency

Mike Huckabee has already proven his ability to lead our citizens as a lieutenant governor for three years in 1993 and governor of Arkansas for the following 10 years. Time magazine called him one of the best governors in America.

As governor, Mike led the citizens of Arkansas through difficult conditions. He balanced the budget each year, enhanced technology in commerce, was tough on crime, used tobacco lawsuit monies to better health care, initiated a toll-free hotline to report tips on government corruption and 16 times had to endure the long nights of the soul before he gave permission for executions to proceed. He also initiated the ARKids First program, cutting the number of uninsured children in half.

It's not a coincidence that four out of the last five presidents we've had were governors because they proved their abilities, perseverance and heart for running our country by serving in those state capacities. As New Man men's magazine (July/August 2007) said, "His proven ability to cast a compelling vision, as he did while governor, that transcends party, ideology and class might enable America to unite and begin to heal, an especially important goal at this point in our history."

Where he stands, and what he will do

Mike Huckabee will fight for the issues that lead us safely, and with prosperity, into the future. Here are several of his positions in his own words (to read or watch Mike speak about the issues, click the title)

Reviving healthcare – "The health care system in this country is irrevocably broken. ? As president, I will work with the private sector, Congress, health care providers and other concerned parties to lead a complete overhaul of our health care system."

Implementing a FairTax – "I support the FairTax. As governor of Arkansas, I cut taxes and fees almost 100 times, saving the taxpayers almost $380 million. I left a surplus of nearly $850 million, which I urged should go back to the people. Our massive deficit is not due to Americans being under-taxed, but to the government's over-spending."

Creating more choices for education – "I believe that every child should have the opportunity for a quality education that teaches the fundamental skills needed to compete in a global economy. ? Test scores rose dramatically when I was governor of Arkansas because of my education reforms."

Stopping illegal immigration –"My number one priority is to secure America's border."

Winning the war on terror – "I believe that we are currently engaged in a world war. This war is not a conventional war, and these terrorists are not a conventional enemy. ? With a focus on renewed diplomacy and inclusion, we can accomplish the goals of our nation without having to go it alone."

Saving marriage – "I support, and have consistently supported, passage of a federal constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. ? As governor of Arkansas, I led the successful effort to pass a similar state constitutional amendment in 2002."

Protecting the right to life – "I support, and have always supported, passage of a constitutional amendment to protect the right to life."

Achieving energy independence –"The first thing I will do as president is send Congress my comprehensive plan for energy independence. We will achieve energy independence by the end of my second term."

(I will address the whys of these and other positions in upcoming articles)

An ordained minister as president?

Does the fact that Mike Huckabee served as an ordained minister create a disadvantage to his election or presidency? Not if one knows Huckabee and history.

First, many may not realize there was an active clergy (Presbyterian minister John Witherspoon) among the signers of the Declaration of Independence – and that two others had been previously ministers. Others were sons of clergy. Virtually all were Protestant Christians.

Signers of the Constitution even included Abraham Baldwin, a minister. "Williamson, Madison, and possibly others, had studied in this field but had never been ordained." And again, most signers of the Constitution were also Protestant Christians, except two, Carroll and Fitzsimons, who were Roman Catholics.

Being honored to share this bi-vocational duty as minister and politician with some of those early patriots, Huckabee has advanced and fine tuned his people and oratory skills. And most of all, it has taught him to put others first. Isn't that what we want in a leader?

Mike is a compassionate Christian conservative. Though solid in his faith and standing for traditional family values, he's not an uncaring extremist. He lives what he believes, and respects others' beliefs even when they disagree with him, committed to a republic that was founded upon the free exercise of religion.

In all respects, Huckabee meets our Founders' recommendations for president.

The David among them

The one question that remains is: Can Huckabee win the nomination? The presidency?

As with the other candidates, Huckabee has, and will continue to have, his hecklers: "He hasn't raised enough money." "He'll never beat Hillary." "Our society is too prejudice and paranoid to vote for a once Baptist minister." "He'll never out-race the top four Republican candidates."

I was thinking about these types of comments the other day when I recalled another leader in ancient times that didn't match up in the line up: King David. Seven men were poised and paraded for the position of king, but David was left in the field shepherding because he wasn't "a frontrunner in the polls." They overlooked the best because they were too busy judging by outward appearance. But God appointed David king.

It's time to quit choosing our leaders based solely upon charisma or one strong suite, and move back to being a culture which esteems and elects its leaders because of character and qualifications. It's substance, not pizzazz, we should want in a leader. Mike Huckabee is the real deal.

Huckabee in '08!

Friends, it's time for people to get off the bench and onto the playing field. If we are going to see a man like Mike Huckabee elected, it's time to rally behind him, support him financially, pray for him daily and spread the word of his character, platform and experience.

So can a man who was raised in a poor background from Hope, Ark., become governor then president? As Mike says, "Our country has already proven that!" What I would ask is: Give Hope another chance! This time, they want to send in the real cavalry.

Keep Hope alive! Join my wife Gena and me by electing Mike Huckabee in '08!

2007-10-03T20:22:00.000-05:00

Evaluation of Ron Paul - Part 2

An answer to comments. . .

In his comments on my first post, Lawrence raised some very interesting questions and points about Ron Paul. Before I go further in addressing other candidates, I felt the need to respond to some things that I may not have made very clear in my first post.

On the issue of spending:

You stated that my list of things that Ron Paul would cut didn’t include the programs of welfare and social security. The list I posted was not intended to be a complete list of programs he would cut – that list would be far longer than what I’d care to type out! I did not mean to imply that these were all good or all bad programs. I do believe that some of them do have value.

While ending unnecessary programs over time is a good thing, Ron Paul’s objective of simply pulling the plug on nearly everything would leave the country in shambles. While it would reduce government spending, eliminating everything would be irresponsible and have serious consequences. Not only do citizens rely on a lot of these programs, but several are needed by the government as well. One example would be the CIA (which would no longer exist under Ron Paul.) I believe that the CIA is essential to our national security.

Eliminating unnecessary programs is a good goal, but Ron Paul wants to eliminate more than necessary. What we don’t need is someone who will try to take government down to the size it was when it started. The country has grown, and our moral as well as legal obligations have also grown (more on that in my next post, though.) A lot of the programs may not be listed in the Constitution specifically, but then, a lot of the problems we face today were non-existent at the time that the Constitution was written.

Let’s get back to the practicality of eliminating all the departments. Without a new way to have, for example, foreign intelligence, things like the CIA cannot be taken away without harming this nation. Think of it like the game of Jinga (where you take blocks out, one by one, and hope not to be the one to pull out the most crucial support) – if you continually take things out that have come to be relied on, eventually the structure will collapse.

As for Foreign Policy, I would like to clarify my position on international organizations.

Some are only diplomatic tools, and definitely have extreme flaws - for example, the United Nations. Others, like NATO, are essential for our security. My statement about not wanting to debate whether we should or should not have joined those organizations in the first place was not because I do not wish to defend the merits of every international organization, but merely for the sake of time.

However, you did raise two issues for which I’d like to give a response:

That these international organizations reduce our National Sovereignty

I agree that some of these organizations give us obligations. However, having debated both sides of Abolishing NATO for a year, I’d like to use that as an example. Addressing sovereignty and NATO, the first thing I’d like to present is Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty:

“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”

Notice the words “each of them …will assist the party or parties so attacked by taking … such action as it deems necessary”

The North Atlantic Treaty was specially crafted so that no nation would be forced to take any action which their governments did not approve through their Constitutional processes. This was obviously the intent, because on March 18, 1949, almost a month before we ratified the North Atlantic Treaty, Dean Acheson, Secretary of State under President Truman, said:

“We would be bound to take promptly the action which we deemed necessary to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. That decision would be taken in accordance with our Constitutional procedures.”

Other organizations such as the United Nations also had language in their charters which was intended to protect each nation’s sovereignty. For example, Article 43 of the U.N. Charter says:

“All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security. …

…The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.”

Look at the last sentence. In order to make any resources available for the United Nations, it must be ratified by our government through our Constitutional processes.

Let me clarify, I am in no way supporting the United Nations as an organization, nor am I supporting any of their policies (gun control, child “rights,” etc.) I am merely pointing out that these international organizations make an effort even within their charters to protect sovereignty.

You may be wondering then, why we haven’t had Congressional approval for everything sent to an organization like NATO? Well some think that we must give whatever is asked to any international organization we are a member of. But in the founding documents of those organizations, our sovereignty is protected by us being guaranteed the opportunity to say “no” to anything that Congress does not approve.

Our government must reclaim the power to decide what we give to organizations. But we should not send the message to the world that we are no longer interested in partnerships - especially when any “problems” within those organizations can be solved while still remaining active in the international community.

As for drain of resources, look once again at the arguments outlined above. Every single penny given to any of these organizations is voluntary. It’s very simple, the United States has realized for nearly 60 years (ever since the attempt to create the League of Nations) that international organizations provide security for their member nations.

Finally, let’s address the issue of Abortion and the Federal Government.

Our government was not founded on only one document. The purpose of our government is not derived from the Constitution, either. The purpose of our government is laid out in the Declaration of Independence, and the methods for achieving that purpose are outlined in the Constitution.

So let’s look first at the original stated purpose of our government:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men…”

It can be broken down as follows:

Everyone has the right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
Government exists to protect those rights for the people

The Constitution is there for the purpose of limiting the methods that the government may use – but keep in mind the ultimate purpose of government: to protect those rights.

With that said, allow me to bring up what you said was my strongest argument: the 14^th Amendment.

You stated that in the opinion of Dr. Paul as well as you personally, abortion is not a Constitutional issue and never has been until the Supreme Court became involved.

On the contrary, the Constitution mandates one very important thing in the 14^th Amendment:

"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Notice how many times the word “any” is used.

"Nor shall ANY State deprive ANY person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to ANY person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Once again, this means that no state may EVER deprive anyone of Life without due process of law. I’ll ask the same question: What crimes have the unborn committed? They haven’t. This means that there is in fact a federal law against allowing murder in the United States, whether on federal lands or not. It is in the Constitution itself.

If you believe that the unborn are as much a part of “anyone” as you and I, then very clearly the Constitution prohibits states from allowing abortion.

You stated that Ron Paul supported bills in the past that would “outlaw” abortion. But whether he supported the bills or not, look at what he has said:

“Under the 9th and 10th amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid.” (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul301.html)

His first sentence is correct. If something is not addressed in the Constitution, it should remain with the states. However, if Dr. Paul believes the unborn to be a part of that “anyone” in the 14^th Amendment, then his second and third sentences is a contradiction of his supposed viewpoints.

You stated that the Supreme Court’s decisions were based on the woman’s right to privacy and individual liberty, as well as definitions of life. I have a few responses:

Will Ron Paul follow what he believes life to be, or what the Supreme Court said it is? If he will follow what he believes life to be, then allowing states to decide on abortion is an unconstitutional position. If he will follow what the Supreme Court defined life to be in that case (Roe v. Wade), then we are in a whole lot of trouble if we elect him.

The “right” to privacy and individual liberty is not an end-all. Just like my “right” to punch someone in the face stops at the end of their nose, a woman’s “right to individual liberty” stops when it would result in the killing of innocents. That’s the second part of the amendment, about equal protection of the laws.

I was a Ron Paul supporter for a long time before he decided to run for President, but seeing and hearing more from him as the race has continued has only changed my mind.

Thank you for your interest in this blog, and I appreciate your feedback.

I enjoyed reading your response to my original post; however, I will probably not have a chance to give a real response to any further analysis of Congressman Paul at this time. My plan is to move through each of the Republican candidates and their stances on the issues.

God Bless!

- Andy Hudson

2007-09-27T21:43:00.000-05:00

Evaluation of Ron Paul

Like many people, when I first heard about Congressman Ron Paul (Texas’ 14^th District) running for President, I was all for it. At the time, he seemed to be the perfect candidate – in favor of small government, wanted to reduce spending and taxes, had a lot of government experience, and from his publications, he sounded very Pro-Life.

My opinion has changed.

While some of those things are, in fact, true statements (Dr. Paul is in favor of small government, less taxes, and less spending), some of the most important reasons that I liked him as a candidate do not hold water.

Spending

First, while he does want to reduce spending, he doesn't have a practical, realistic way to achieve that. Instead, he plans to simply eliminate a lot of the departments, without looking at the huge ramifications of his actions. Just look at a few of the things he would try to shut down:

- The Internal Revenue Service

- Department of Education

- Department of Homeland Security

- Energy

- FEMA

- Interstate Commerce Commission

- The U.N.

- NATO

- NAFTA

- WTO

Whether or not these organizations are useful is not the question. The question is whether or not he has a practical way to achieve reduced spending. Simply wiping out all of those organizations without regard to the consequences would severely damage the country by suddenly eliminating a lot of the things that our country has come to rely on.

On another note, consider for a moment the sheer number of people that are employed by these organizations. While some use its size as an argument for eliminating all these departments and agencies, don’t forget that just eliminating the domestic agencies on that list puts over 270,000 people out of work.

Diplomacy/Foreign Policy

Also, consider if you will, the diplomatic problems that leaving all of these international organizations would cause. Whether or not we should have joined NATO or the U.N. is not the point here. The point is that within those organizations, we are safeguarded against foreign control by those treaties and charters (which say that any actions must be approved through our Constitutional methods first). However, if Congressman Paul had any idea of how diplomacy worked, he would know that leaving those organizations would send the worst possible message to foreign nations about the United States. It would send the message to the world that the United States, while committed to its allies in the past, was no longer interested in partnerships.

In the words of Elizabeth Jones, Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs at the State Department, before the House International Relations Committee: “NATO remains the cornerstone of transatlantic security. In the aftermath of September 11th, Allies invoked NATO’s Article 5 collective defense commitment for the first time in history. Our Allies have provided invaluable support to the anti-terrorist effort.”

Dr. Paul, however, would be eliminating this “cornerstone” of security, among other international organizations that, while they might not all increase security directly, do in fact bring the United States closer to other nations as a friends. He seems to have no concept of how the world is interconnected, and how nations in this age must have global partners in order to have security.

The issue of Iraq is another long subject, so I will not be addressing it in this post, but will write about it some other time.

Abortion

While I believe that Congressman Paul’s foreign policies and spending policies (or lack thereof) would be far too extreme, they aren’t the main reasons that I would not support him. His “social policy” is probably the worst thing that I’ve seen yet. In keeping with his idea of being a “strict Constitutionalist,” Dr. Paul would do nothing to stop abortion and to guarantee the right to life.

Ron Paul calls himself Pro-Life. However, his campaign speeches today contradict what his position has been in Congress for years. His view on abortion is that the federal government has no place in that issue. He calls it a “social policy” and says it should be left up to the states.

I am very Pro-Life. I believe that life begins at conception. This means that an unborn child is as much a human being as you are right now. They should have the same rights of Life and Liberty as you and I. If this is true, then the federal government has the same obligation to protect unborn babies as it does to say that murder is illegal.

Ron Paul believes otherwise. Rather than believing that unborn children are as valuable as any one of us, Dr. Paul apparently doesn’t think that abortion is murder. He said on January 31, 2006:

“Abortion simply is not a constitutional issue. There is not a word in the text of that document, nor in any of its amendments, that conceivably addresses abortion.” (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul301.html)

Not a word? How about Amendment 14?

“Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Due process of law? What crimes have the unborn committed? Congressman Paul may call himself Pro-Life. But if he were Pro-Life in principle and not just campaign speeches, then he would consider the unborn to be protected under the 14^th Amendment along with every other person in the United States.

The question that really hammered this home for me is simple: If Ron Paul wouldn’t do anything to protect the unborn, what makes him different from anyone that doesn’t claim to be Pro-Life?

Nothing.