Monday, December 31, 2007

Liberal Media Love Huck

I have one complaint tonight. Is it just me or is the media in love with Mike Huckabee? Over the last few weeks, almost every story I read involving Huck presents him in some fabulous light. And what are they about? Huck blasting Mitt Romney over his "dishonesty" or his "sincerity" in his opposition to abortion. Let's discuss honesty shall we?

Mike Huckabee swears he had nothing to do with releasing Wayne Dumond other than signing a paper. And yet three or four on the parole board swear he had a more than one closed door meeting with them pushing Dumond's release. So, the word of Huck or the word of three or four parole board members?? I tend to believe the word of several witnesses. Huck is a liar. What has Mitt lied about? Who knows? Huck said he was being dishonest to get the job, but never gives any legitimate examples.

From a CNN article, "Romney has been airing television ads criticizing Huckabee for raising state spending, backing in-state tuition for illegal immigrants at state colleges and granting more than 1,000 pardons and commutations.

"Huckabee has said the claims are taken out of context..." Let me ask a question...How does one take 1000 pardons out of context? He granted them plain and simple. Heck it was easy to get one in Arkansas. All you had to do was say you got saved and wanted to change your life, and Huckabee would fight to get you pardoned. And Huck can't possibly be backing down from his in-state tuition for illegals, I heard him defend that position emphatically on the YouTube debate. Mike Huckabee raised spending from $6 million to $16 million. How is that taken out of context? That's the facts. Of course, CNN doesn't raise this question or criticize Huck for making such a foolish statement. They provide a link to a video of Huck criticizing Romney instead.

Next thing...If Romney gets the Republican nomination for President, Huckabee will not support him in the national election. Which proves the point I and others have been making for some time. Huckabee is a Democrat in every way except that he opposes abortion and same-sex marraige. Otherwise he is very liberal. I can't help but wonder if his opposition to Romney has more to do with Romney being a Mormon than anything else. Being a Southern Baptist minister, I'm sure he has preached sermons about why Mormons are wrong and going to hell. I haven't met a Southern Baptist minister who hasn't preached such a sermon. He simply can't support a Mormon, regardless of his politics. Of course he won't admit to it, but he has stumbled with the Mormon question before.

So back to my original question...Is the media in love with Huckabee? Heck yeah they are. Why? Because he is the easiest Republican candidate to beat. The liberals have put it out there to keep Huck out of their negative comments. Clinton and Obama do not want to run against Mitt Romney. He represents real Reagan conservativism. He stands on all three legs of social conservative, fiscal conservative, and foreign policy conservative. He can unite the conservative coalition and obtain the support needed to easily defeat the Democratic nominee, whoever that may be. They know it and they don't want to face it. Therefore, they are keeping quiet about Huck. The liberal media even tries to make him look good. I think Americans are smarter than that. I think Americans are smarter than to have a nominee who jokes about his lack of foreign policy experience, supports benefits for illegal immigrants, and supports tax and spending increases. I think they are smarter than to nominate a candidate who is a "Christian leader" and has no other qualifications to serve in the highest office in the United States.

Friday, December 21, 2007

Top 10 Reasons Why the Media Want Clinton, Part Deux

Several months ago, Hillary Clinton’s campaign website ran a banner story called, “The Top 10 Reasons to Support Hillary for President and Help Make History.” That list is now gone from the site, undoubtedly because her own team is havi

read more | digg story

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

We got a new phone...

that takes the most amazing pics for a phone. It's the new LG Chocolate phone. It's much more advanced than the one we've had for the last two years, so we'll be playing with it and learning how to use it for about the next two years. It takes great pics anyway. Don't I have the most beautiful wife??!!

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

National Review Endorses Mitt Romney

The editors of National Review Online (NRO) have endorsed Mitt Romney for President. This is a huge endorsement. Read the entire article here. Some highlights:

"Our guiding principle has always been to select the most conservative viable candidate. In our judgment, that candidate is Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts. Unlike some other candidates in the race, Romney is a full-spectrum conservative: a supporter of free-market economics and limited government, moral causes such as the right to life and the preservation of marriage, and a foreign policy based on the national interest. While he has not talked much about the importance of resisting ethnic balkanization — none of the major candidates has — he supports enforcing the immigration laws and opposes amnesty. Those are important steps in the right direction."

"Uniting the conservative coalition is not enough to win a presidential election, but it is a prerequisite for building on that coalition. Rudolph Giuliani did extraordinary work as mayor of New York and was inspirational on 9/11. But he and Mike Huckabee would pull apart the coalition from opposite ends: Giuliani alienating the social conservatives, and Huckabee the economic (and foreign-policy) conservatives. A Republican party that abandoned either limited government or moral standards would be much diminished in the service it could give the country."

"Romney is an intelligent, articulate, and accomplished former businessman and governor. At a time when voters yearn for competence and have soured on Washington because too often the Bush administration has not demonstrated it, Romney offers proven executive skill. He has demonstrated it in everything he has done in his professional life, and his tightly organized, disciplined campaign is no exception. He himself has shown impressive focus and energy."

"For some people, Romney’s Mormonism is still a barrier. But we are not electing a pastor. The notion that he will somehow be controlled by Salt Lake City or engaged in evangelism for his church is outlandish. He deserves to be judged on his considerable merits as a potential president. As he argued in his College Station speech, his faith informs his values, which he has demonstrated in both the private and public sectors. In none of these cases have any specific doctrines of his church affected the quality of his leadership. Romney is an exemplary family man and a patriot whose character matches the high office to which he aspires.

More than the other primary candidates, Romney has President Bush’s virtues and avoids his flaws. His moral positions, and his instincts on taxes and foreign policy, are the same. But he is less inclined to federal activism, less tolerant of overspending, better able to defend conservative positions in debate, and more likely to demand performance from his subordinates. A winning combination, by our lights. In this most fluid and unpredictable Republican field, we vote for Mitt Romney."

Sunday, December 9, 2007

Good Reads from Evangelical Leader

These two articles by Wayne Grudem, a research professor of Bible and theology at Phoenix Seminary, highlight why he, and all evangelical Christians, should vote for Mitt Romney.
His endorsement in October and Interview after The Speech.

Saturday, December 8, 2007

Everyone needs to read this commentary by Peggy Noonan about the speech given by Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, Faith in America. To hear the speech, click play on the video posted on December 6, or go to Mitt Romney's official website.

Thursday, December 6, 2007

My response to the Rick and Bubba Show - Dec. 5, 2007

Dear Rick and Bubba,

I have been a long time listener, over 13 years, to your show. I have never been disappointed in the show until yesterday, December 5, 2007. You have been long-time supporters of the Bush administration, which I have enjoyed. You seem to be upstanding citizens and Christians who try to live faithfully. Yesterday you had a Mr. James Walker on your show. This is a man who left the LDS Church back in 1976 and has been working fervently since to debunk The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Now that is all well and good. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and if Mr. Walker feels that the Church is wrong and wants to tell everyone about it, that’s his prerogative. I have to tell you, just because his family before him had been members of the Church for four generations does not qualify Mr. Walker to be a spokesman for the church. He left the Church at the age of 21 and has been discrediting it ever since. He is hardly credentialed to explain what members of the LDS Church teach and believe. Like all other detractors, he has taken quotes and teachings of church leaders out of context and presented them in a way that is not accurate or true. I understand that he contacted you, but if you really want to make the community aware of what is taught and practiced by the LDS Church, there are people in the Church, such as bishops, stake presidents, and even PR people that would be in a better position to explain and answer questions. The thing that really bothers me is you have an ex-Mormon on your show, and then the callers that get on the air are other ex-Mormons and those that aren’t exactly the most well-versed members. The Church has nothing to hide, and is not trying to obscure its teachings or practices. Go to the source. I could give you contact information for people you might want to talk to in order to get a better understanding, for yourself and the community.

The whole point of my writing is not the above paragraph, although I really feel you have failed the public by only having the opinions of outsiders and no facts from the source. No, the reason I am writing is out of a concern for the welfare of our country. The 6th Article of the Constitution of the United States declares, “…no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” And yet this is what is happening in this election, and on your show. The entire interview with Mr. Walker was under the premise that people need to know what Mormons believe before voting for Mitt Romney. Strangely, former Baptist minister Mike Huckabee has ads in Iowa that state he is a “Christian Leader”, obviously declaring he has won such a religious test while implying that Mitt Romney has lost this test because he is a Mormon. Need I remind you that such a campaign and religious test got us a Jimmy Carter as President. I don’t think I need to expound further on that point. This line of thinking is the same as Hillary Clinton saying women should vote for her because she is a woman (which she has done), or blacks should vote for Barack Obama because he is black. None of these are qualifications or ultimate reasons why one should vote for any of these candidates. I maintain that the church a person belongs to has absolutely no bearing on his ability to perform the duties of the office of President of the United States. Rather, look at the man’s leadership experience, his voting record, his values, his foreign policy, but not his religious affiliation. What Mitt Romney believes about the ultimate destination of his soul has absolutely no bearing on the decisions he will make when we are faced with a national emergency or healthcare reform or raising or lowering taxes. Did John F. Kennedy force his Catholicism on the USA? Did he bring the influence of the Vatican into his Presidency? Did he consult the Pope on matters of war or foreign policy? What makes anyone think that Mitt Romney will be taking orders from Salt Lake City? I think there would be serious repercussions for him if he took such actions and do not think for one moment that such will be the case.

Let’s look at Mitt Romney’s accomplishments. He has taken businesses that were near bankruptcy, turned them around and now they are among the most profitable businesses. When the 2002 Winter Olympics were severely in debt and on the brink of ruin, Mitt Romney was called on to turn it around. The 2002 games were one of the most successful in history. As governor of Massachusetts he took a state that was billions of dollars in debt and in four years balanced the budget and now the state enjoys a huge surplus. I might add he did this while lowering taxes and cutting costs. As governor, he fought against abortion and same-sex marriage. He instituted a plan whereby all Massachusetts citizens have affordable healthcare (no tax raising for that one either). As Romney has pointed out, the United States government is one of the biggest enterprises in the world. He has the experience and the knowledge that will enable him to get us out of debt and strengthen our economy. He knows how jobs are created and how to build the economy. Mitt Romney has been married faithfully for over 35 years. He has children and grandchildren who love and support him. Looking for someone with good family values? No divorces, no cheating, loves and spends time with his family. This is the man who will fight for stronger families. I’m not voting for Mitt because he is a member of the LDS Church. My mind is made up because of his record, policies, and values. To make my point, Harry Reid is the Democratic Senate Majority leader at this time. He is also a Mormon. I wouldn’t vote for him in a million years. His policies and record and values do not match those I am looking for.

Let’s now look at our theology degree Baptist minister. As governor of Arkansas, he raised taxes repeatedly. There wasn’t a tax he didn’t like. He increased spending from $6 million to $16 million. Tax and spend, sounds like a Democrat policy. He fought to spend Arkansas citizens’ tax dollars on giving scholarships to the children of illegal immigrants. Think about that. Illegal immigrants would have gotten better benefits than would the children of United States citizens. Do you think that would continue? Furthermore, when asked about his limited (nonexistent) experience in foreign policy, Huckabee only joked, “And the ultimate thing is, you know, I may not be the expert as some people on foreign policy – but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.” (WABC Radio, 12/04/07) This is not a joking matter. Is this really the man you want running our country? I mean, he does have a theology degree after all. This surely qualifies him to know what to do about radical Jihadism…maybe not. You must be aware that Huckabee has absolutely no chance of winning the Republican nomination for president. Sure, he can rally the evangelicals, but he’ll never gain support of fiscal conservatives. His record proves he cannot be trusted with our money. A vote for him is a vote for Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani’s pro-abortion and pro-same-sex-union stances are just like most of the Democrats’ positions. We might as well be voting Democrat.

On the other hand, we could vote for Mitt Romney who is a proven social and fiscal conservative. He can unite the Republican base, and he can win the Presidency. He has earned the endorsements of such evangelical leaders as Bob Jones III and Robert R. Taylor, pro-life leaders such as James Bopp, Jr., and important social and religious conservative leader Paul M. Weyrich, among others.

One more thing I want to touch on. Rick, you made a comment that I have heard over and over and over in my life. When talking to one woman who is a member of the LDS Church, you brought up a scripture in an effort to discredit the Book of Mormon. Of course you know that I am referring to Revelation 22:18-19. This is the standard Baptist answer to the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. This is also the most ignorant use of Bible of which I know. Some facts:

  • Most Biblical scholars agree that John wrote Revelation 10-25 years before he wrote his Gospel.
  • The Bible wasn’t compiled in its current form until nearly 370AD.
  • It was common practice for prophets to add a warning about adding to, taking away, or changing their writings (see Deuteronomy 4:2).

In light of this information, the Bible as we have it today did not exist when John wrote Revelation. Those verses related to his revelation which he was writing at the time, and not to the Bible as a whole. Honestly, Rick, for someone who studies the Bible so much, or claims to, all you know is a few verses in the Bible. Like many “ministers”, you know the verses but you have absolutely no idea of the background, where it came from, or how we got it in its present form today. These things are relevant, and like all Protestants before you, your argument has no relevance or credibility. Get your facts straight and don’t use scriptures in an attempt to nullify the credibility of a religion other than your own.

Lastly, as you can probably tell, I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I want you to know my feelings about my Savior. I know that Jesus Christ is my Savior, the literal Son of the Living God. I know that nearly 2000 years ago, he was born of a virgin in Bethlehem. He grew to the stature of a man, and at the age of 30 began his public ministry. I know that His words, teachings, and works lay out the path to salvation and eternal life. The Jesus I worship is the Jesus from the Bible, and none other. I know that he suffered, bled, and died for my sins. Through his atonement, I know that I can be saved. There is nothing in this world that I can do of myself to bring salvation to my soul. It is only through the grace, merits, and mercy of Him that I am saved, on condition of full repentance of my sins. I do make mistakes, but as I repent and strive to live His teachings, I know that His mercy and grace are sufficient for salvation. This is my testimony, that He lives and loves me and loves each and every individual.

Joshua LaDeau
Trussville, Alabama

Faith in America - Speech by Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney's Speech

Quoted from Charles Mitchell, blogger on concerning Mitt Romney's speech to be given today.

"Honestly, I'd like to see the speech reflect a distinction I think we've talked about, but not necessarily called out, and that's the difference between a spiritual leader and a moral leader. As we say all the time, the 2008 election is for president, not pastor. And it's a mistake to think the president is a spiritual leader -- indeed, some of our greatest presidents, such as Thomas Jefferson, had distinctly un-Christian theologies, and some of our worst, namely Jimmy Carter, were undoubtedly evangelicals.

But I think you can accept all that and still say that the president should be a moral leader. Meaning, you shouldn't be looking to him for theological discourses and advice, but he should have good values that are worthy of emulating and he should be living them out. And so I think Governor Romney's speech should be about the values his faith -- however wrong its doctrine may be -- gives him. I think they are the same values conservative evangelicals espouse -- and, candidly, I think he also does a better job living them out than most of us. I also think he deserves great credit for seeking -- as he said in his FRC speech -- to use the presidency as a "bully pulpit" for messages like the sanctity of life and the need for parents to stay together.

Honestly, it's been a long time since we've had someone like that in the Oval Office. President Bush's values are wonderful, but he doesn't really do the whole bully pulpit thing -- and we all know the eight years of debauchery that preceded him. If Governor Romney can send a message to conservative evangelicals tomorrow, though, that as president he would be a moral leader based on the values that most American share -- not "the Mormon president," based narrowly on some doctrine few people share -- I think the day will be a huge win, politically speaking. And, more importantly, it will be a day in which he sets out a way to unify people around shared values -- not divide them through an overtly sectarian campaign, as at least one other candidate is apparently seeking to do."