The good Doctor Reverend

We're talking about Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ, TUCC has been Barack Obama's home church for the last 20 years.

You've may have heard or seen some of this already, but Rev. Wright is now on one of Obama's racial advisory panel. He has been Obama's pastor for 20 years, and he even performed Barack's wedding.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4443788&page=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9HUdF9OZa8 - 5 days after the Sept. 11th attacks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUbUBTlmAiA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNTGRL0OJWQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlLv00Ww_CI&feature=related

http://www.tucc.org/home.htm - church's website.

No commentary is needed on this one.

Happy Trails, Mike! Until next time...

Following Mike Huckabee's withdrawl from the 2008 Republican Primary:

.

Dear Faithful Friends, Last night was a tough one for all of us. While Janet and I stood on the stage, we felt as if we were surrounded by a much larger family than our immediate family. We have been surrounded throughout the process by a large and growing family of faithful friends whose efforts in the campaign have humbled and amazed us day after day. I regularly wept or choked back tears just reading comments on the blog when I realized the sacrifices that so many have made for the campaign.

We had held out hope that we would win enough delegates to keep the contest going, but had vowed that if Senator McCain actually got the 1191 delegates, we would accept the will of the voters. In the end, the relentless hammering of the media that we "couldn't win" influenced enough voters and while we campaigned long and hard in the final states, it simply wasn't enough. I congratulate Senator McCain and will do what I can to assist him and influence him to take strong stands for issues that we conservatives cherish.

I don't see the long journey having reached its destination, but merely taking a detour. As my Marine friend Clebe McLary says, "I didn't lose--it's just that the game ended before I got finished playing."

In the immediate days ahead, we will be transitioning from campaign mode. For 14 months, there have been a lot of things put on hold in our lives. We have to join the many incredible people on our staff to figure out "what's next?" But this much I can tell you---we want to stay in touch and start now building a platform to continue addressing issues that brought us together in the first place.

Throughout my life, I've found that there are sometimes three possible answers to our prayers--"Yes," "No," or "Not Now." I would like to think our prayers were answered with a "Not Now."

We will keep our website up and as we transition, will want to create a way to keep in touch and continue the battle for our families, our freedom, and our future. We will also focus on assisting conservative Senate and House candidates, in places where we know our investment of time and energy can make a real difference. You can expect us to be active online as we do this and to regularly solicit your opinions and support. Too many big issues are at stake for us to sit on the sidelines.

In the immediate time, we have to make sure that we help our staff find ways to earn a living, and make sure that we don't lose the momentum of the past 14 months, but instead follow the plan:

REFLECT, REST, RENEW, and RE-BOOT!

I really welcome your input and thoughts during these coming days. Pray for us as we seek wisdom as to what steps we take now. Despite what some have thought, we really didn't have a "Plan B' in the wings--we always thought we'd be in this until the inauguration in January of 2009!

God has been so good to us! We can never fully express our gratitude for all you have done and how you have touched and blessed our lives. I truly hope I didn't let you down. I promise to you that I gave it all I had to the last minute and left it "all on the field." What is more amazing is how you were willing to be "poured out" to the point of empty in order to be with us all the way. I stand amazed by it all and overwhelmed with gratitude.

We will dust off, pick ourselves up off the canvas, and answer the bell for the next round, whatever that may be. We love you all, and trust that the journey has just begun! With tired bodies and grateful hearts,

Mike and Janet Huckabee


www.mikehuckabee.com

March Madness...in February.

On the subject of John McCain's running-mate, and Mike Huckabee's deciscion to remain in the race, despite overwhelming odds...

First, Mike is very smart to continue his campaign until McCain wins the required number of delegates for two reasons...
1.) He's still raising money. After the Super Tuesday win and Romney's resignation from the race, Huck raised $1M in one week. Which is a lot for him.
2.) There is a very slim chance that McCain might not get the required number of nominees by the convention, in which case genuine conservatives might have a chance to challenge him. It won't be as big of a fight like the dems are going to have if they don't have a nominee by convention, but it could still be exciting. Mike said "I didn't major in math, I majored in miracles".

Now, the realistic election picture (you know how you fill out two NCAA brackets? One that you would like to happen and one that is most likely to happen (and, thus, the one you enter into the office pool)?
Well, here is my entry, if I were a betting man:

McCain will be our nominee, but it will only be sewn up right before the convention. Huckabee will keep going until then.
Obama will win the Democrat nominee, and take the Presidency in the general election.
McCain is old and does not have the "rock star" appeal with the increasingly more shallow electorate. Obama has a brand, an attractiveness, and is interesting.
McCain is old, not liked by the base of the party, and (let's be honest) he talks funny. McCain will not pick Huckabee as his running mate. While Huck has run a respectful campaign, if he wanted the VP, he could (and probably should) have backed out a while ago. McCain has plenty of DC insiders that can fill whatever Huckabee's contribution of strengths are (namely Southern, Christian).

Two wrenches: 1.) Hillary. She won't let this go. Never rule out the Clintons. They'll find a way to reverse the inevitable. In which case, they will not "let" Obama win. This may happen at convention.
2.) Mike. This is an incredibly long shot. But the more dissatisfaction that Conservatives have w/ McCain, the more likely it is.

So, what is Mike's future?

Best Picture for Mike? (aside from an outright win)
McCain doesn't pick him. McCain loses the General to Obama. Obama is a disaster. Huckabee enters in 2012, no longer a dark horse without money, but instead a well-known, well-liked, well-respected, and well-funded (from having four years to solidify himself as leader of the Conservative movement and thereby raise tons of cash).

Second best picture? McCain does pick him. Huckabee's "huckiness" offsets Obama's B.O. (Barack Obama-ness) and eaks out a W2000-style squeaker. McCain is old, and angry and...well, let's just say that it's good to be second in line...
Hey, it's worked for Mike before! Finish out McCain's first term and have two of his own.

Why don't I think Mike would be a good pick for Veep? Because he really needs to solidify his reputation as a genuine Conservative, and an association with McCain will not only damage that, it will lose the respect of the Conservative heavy hitters. Then they'll continue to pound him. If he loses his Presidential bid, doesn't associate w/ McCain, then McCain loses and Huck takes the driver's seat in the movement and earns the respect of the powers that be. Then he'd be in a much better position having then defined himself by his own reputation, rather than letting others define him by association.

Mike staying in and solidifying himself as a force to be reckoned with probably guarantees a keynote address during the RNC that will put him on the track to be the heir apparent after McCain (who, as I said before, will lose to Obama). Remember where Obama was in 2004? Wowing the DNC and overshadowing John Kerry. The charisma, liability, and popularity of Huck will place him in a similar position.

A lamp unto my feet

Republican Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee discusses how the Lord is guiding him through the turmoils of the campaign.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/228/story_22873_1.html

I've recently been somewhat skeptical of Huckabee in his persistent use of the word "faith" in a non-specific manner. It is still disappointing to me that there is no mention of Jesus, God, or the Bible on his website Check it out:

http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=9

...and he usually only mentions these things by name in interviews with religious news medias. However, he is running a national campaign for a secular office, so I can understand the difficult balance he is trying to hold between letting his faith in God define his character while still appealing to Americans of other religious (or non-religious) backgrounds. Because, if he does become the next President, he won't just be the President of Christians...he'll be the leader of all Americans - Muslims, Jews, and Agnostics alike. So, I suppose a small amount of ambiguity is understandable, to some degree.

I did, however, enjoy reading the interview, and it was definitely nice to learn a little more about the man's day-to-day faith out on the campaign trail. I appreciate the inclusion of specific scriptures, the insight on his personal devotional practices, supplication from his friends and colleagues, and his plan to bring the Constitution in-line with God's standards for mankind as outlined in the Bible.

Three's a crowd: 1992 vs. 2008

Over the past 100 years or so, the American political landscape has become increasingly polarized between Conservatives and Liberals. Each generation brings a new host of issues, but it seems that these two groups usually end up on opposing sides of just about everything. Politicians find safety in numbers by adopting the principles of one party or the other, receiving praise for conformity and rebuke for individuality. Such a persistent "smoothing" effect has tumbled out some incredibly hard stones of contempt between the two major political parties on issues ranging from the protection and interpretation of the Bill of Rights to the broad-based ideologies of American Foreign relations.

1-on-1
This head to head competition provides most people a simplified way to identify and streamline their own personal beliefs, and it helps to more easily sum up and convey these beliefs to others. For example, if I were to say, "I'm a Conservative Republican," most people would assume that I hold a Pro-Life stance on the issue of Abortion and believe in protecting traditional marriage. Likewise, when someone claims to support a Liberal candidate, I call to mind the platform of the Democratic party, and it helps me surmise their general outlook on various issues.

However, in hopes of widening their appeal to both sides, we have seen a "land rush" of politicians running to the middle ground, eroding their once-hardline stances on social and economic issues. The apparent mediocrity and lukewarm nature of such candidates has opened the electoral playing field to a new type of contender. Coming from the outside of the two-party system, the rogue, Independent candidate, wells up from splinter-cell Parties or perhaps as a lone-wolf "fortunaire," eager to shed some light on an otherwise dim ballot.

The free-spirited and eternally optimistic sides of me often yield a flicker of interest whenever someone sets themselves apart from the so-called "Corporate" politicians. I've always admired those figures who will persevere toward the prize, no matter the opposition - the ones that are so driven by their own convictions and aspirations that nothing can dissuade them. These guys and gals are in the race for the long-haul, and not just for the fortune and glory.

Yes, No, or Maybe?
But, in this case, life does not imitate art, and for the most part, these "alternative" candidates usually end up offering no more than a third bubble on the ballot sheet, and in the past, have caused a good deal of mayhem to the Presidential election process. The most effective independent in recent history was Ross Perot, during the 1992 election. The Democrats had sent up Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton to threaten the incumbent Republican, George Bush in the general election. Bush was enjoying a warm wave of public opinion following the successful military campaign, which removed the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, and many felt confident that Bush would ride that wave to another four years in the White House.

However, the smooth-talking sax player from Hope had a few cards up his sleeve, as well, and the campaign began to look like an evenly matched, Heavy-weight bout. But when a dark horse billionaire from Texas threw his cowboy hat in the ring, things went haywire. For the first time in recent history, voters began to feel hopeful in supporting an alternative candidate, and the traditional Red vs. Blue battle lines turned to purple. Ross Perot captured the attention of American voters like no other outsider had in a very long time. His confrontational attitude and exhaustive library of financial pie charts led to an upheaval of the delegation process. No longer would voters feel constrained by only two choices, and many of them took that opportunity to voice their criticism of the two-party system...nearly 20 million people (or about 19% of the entire vote), in fact.

By the Numbers
Given the structure of America's Electoral College system, Perot's 19% earned him virtually no claim to the presidency. He never won a majority of a state's popular vote, and it's fair to say that he would have been easily defeated even if he had somehow won the candidacy of either major party. However, by examining the state-by-state breakdown of votes, there is good evidence that Perot greatly tipped the scales in favor of Clinton. Perot, although liberal on much of his platform, somehow appealed to moderate Republicans more than moderate Democrats. It is fair to surmise, then, that a good portion of those votes could have gone to Bush, had Perot not been in the race.

Consider the breakdown of the popular vote for the entire nation: Clinton won about 45 million votes, and Bush took just over 39 million - a difference of 6 million, i.e. a landslide. Perot came in, as previously mentioned, nearly 20 million. However, percentage-wise, we're left with an odd, non-decisive breakdown. Clinton 43%, Bush 37%, Perot 19%. So, we're saying that far less than 1/2 of voting Americans wanted Clinton to be the President? That doesn't seem right.

But, we're looking at the election, "sans-Perot" so why don't we take the electoral votes from the 11 states that Clinton won by 5% or less, and swing them over to Bush.
NJ, OH, GA, LA, TN, KY, CO, NV, MT, WI, NH = 107 Votes.
Clinton originally had 370, so that puts him at 263
Bush originally had 168, so that puts him at 275.

Take the third-party candidate out, and you might be left with a very different outcome.

2008
So, "Why did we just spend all this time talking about an election that happened over 15 years ago?" Good question. The reason my brain got wrapped around this subject and compiled all this opinionated data is the current media hoopla surrounding the possibility of an independent candidate jumping into this year's Presidential election.

One such candidate, New York City Mayor - Michael Bloomberg, has been conducting independent research to determine what success he might see in an Independent campaign for the White House. And, he has developed a growing crowd of supporters. http://www.runmikerun.com/ http://draftmichael.com/ , not to mention the mainstream media, who has been promoting the idea since the last election.

After once switching sides from the Democrats, Bloomberg once again abruptly jettisoned his alignment last year, this time to the Republican party, but balked at returning to his former allegiance. Instead, he's forged a staunchly independent platform and bi-partisan prerogative, albeit, still based on his moderate-liberal ideology. Like Perot, Bloomberg is also independently wealthy, and some experts speculate he could spend an unfathomable amount on his bid, upwards of a billion dollars.

Personal opinions on Bloomberg's politics aside, a casual observer could be encouraged once again by the entrance of yet another third-party candidate to this year's election. And, with a seemingly flaccid field of Republicans and Democrats from which to choose, the passive voter might err on the side of rogue. However, Bloomberg is hardly a "dark horse" candidate, and it is all too possible that his successes in NYC and center-of-the-road appeal could pull a large portion of votes from both the Left and the Right. But, would his effect on the 2008 election mirror that of Perot in '92? Could the US be once again given a President who did not win a substantial majority of the popular vote? Or, would Bloomberg's campaign even lead him to win the electoral votes of a states or two, denying all three candidates of the 270 votes needed for election? One definite notion is that in a one-on-one fight, there is only one winner. And, considering the razor-thin margin of victory of several previous elections, a third party would definitely tip the scales unfairly in one direction. Whether it's to the Right, Left, or somewhere else is anyone's guess.

Taxes

“I'm proud of paying taxes. The only thing is--I could be just as proud for half the money.”
--Arthur Godfrey

I recently renewed my vehicle license tags, which caused me to consider the incredible amount of taxation that goes on for that one single item.

Sales Tax - I was taxed on the money I spent when I bought my truck several years ago.
Personal Property Tax - Before I can register, I have to pay property tax just for owning the vehicle.
Vehicle Registration Tax - I'm taxed on the registration of the vehicle
Fuel Tax - Then, if I want to drive the vehicle, I'm taxed on the gasoline that I buy.
Federal Income Tax - And above all, I'm taxed on the money I earn to pay all these taxes, too.

I pay my taxes, because I'm a law-abiding citizen, and it is our God-assigned duty to "render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's..." but eventually, there's got to be a limit.

I've been reading alot about the "Flat Tax" or "Fair Tax" plans recently, so hopefully, I'll formulate an opinion on the subject soon.

There just has to be a better way.

Christian and Liberal?

There is so much I could write on this, but in the interest of brevity, and since this is the first real post in this blog. Plus, I don't want to scare you away, right off the bat with all of my crazy conservative view points...

Transcribed from an e-conversation I recently had with a fellow patriot and dear friend. The following text concerns itself with the topic of Christians who support Liberal Democrat political candidates:

Conclusions are as follows:

1. Many people align themselves with the left because it appears to be a more modern, progressive way of thinking (according to the mainstream media), but never really develop strong beliefs on platform issues.
2. Many people also align themselves with political stances that will benefit them personally, rather than holding convictions that are in the best interest of the nation. This is done out of a selfish motivation for economic gain and concern about perceived public opinion. A true God-fearing Christian would completely contradict his or her own Biblical beliefs by merely supporting the standard issues on the Liberal Democrat party agenda.

For Example, the three leading Democratic Presidential Candidates have a solid history (and a promising future) of supporting Abortion Rights, Gay Rights, and Federal Health care. Christians of any denomination should oppose these issues completely, regardless of their opinion on any individual candidate.

A. Abortion rights benefit the unwed mother/father, to escape the consequences of immoral behavior. They argue that a woman has a right to make her own decisions when it comes to her own body, and deny the fact that abortion is the murder of a baby.
1. Those who support abortion either live that kind of lifestyle, or want to appeal to those who do (in order to win their support/money/votes). For someone not personally involved in an unwanted pregnancy or that possibility, abortion rights do not benefit them at all, (i.e. they have no vested interest in the issue, other than for voter support.)
2. Those who oppose abortion are trying to re-establish a moral foundation, for the good of the country as a whole (because it is the right thing to do, regardless of public opinion).

B. Gay rights benefit homosexuals only, and serve to facilitate their own personal lifestyle choices and promote their values on the public stage.
1. Those who support gay rights either live that kind of lifestyle, or want to appeal to those who do (in order to win their support/money/votes). For someone not personally involved in that lifestyle, gay rights do not benefit them at all. They could be potentially motivated by a sense of fairness, with the hopes of establishing equal governmental statuses for gay and straight households alike.
2. Those who oppose gay rights are trying to re-establish a moral foundation. They still regard the traditional family as the primary foundation for America and her future generations.

C. Federal Health Care lends itself a little more on the side of "it's good for the country" in the minds of its supporters.
1. Those who support it either don't have health coverage of their own (because they choose not to have it), or they are playing the sympathy card on the lower-income crowd. This serves to create a greater dependency of the "have-nots" upon the "haves".
2. Those who oppose it are mostly responsible people who have steady employment and pay for their own coverage. They believe that, as with any Federal agency, a Government-run Health Care system would be over-stressed and under-caring. Decisions about an individual's health would be left up to federal representatives. Once the system begins to get into trouble, it wouldn't take much time at all for many necessary medical treatments to get classified as "elective" and therefore ineligible for coverage/reimbursement. - Removing the competition of private companies takes away the motivation for improvement.
***Plus, coupled with issues A and B, Federal Health Care could easily enable widespread, taxpayer-funded treatment for unwanted pregnancies and STD-related issues (for gay and straight alike).

Passive, permissive Christians may lean to the left with the mindset of, "I don't approve of that behavior, but it's not right for us to enforce religious morals on other people." However, through the simple act of paying taxes according to Federal Policies designed by Liberals, we are already supporting things like the teaching of Evolution as fact in public schools, the removal of God and prayer from schools, the teaching of secular sex-ed, and the removal of the 10 Commandments and Nativity Scenes from Public grounds...to name a few.