Public Enemy #1.Fellow Bloggers,
Are you ready for some life style changes? If one candidate gets elected & has their way, yours will be changed. Whether you like it or not. Whether you want it to or not. Are you ready to have even more of your hard earned money going into taxes & used for something that you might not only like & are against, but is in violation of a Constitutional principle? If one candidate gets elected & has their way, say, “Bye bye hard earned money.” Are you ready to become a second class citizen? If one candidate gets elected & has their way, you’ll get your chance to see how some of us have felt for years. Who is this candidate? How will he change my life, you might ask? What’s going to happen to me? Darn good questions. And you should be asking them, & more. There’s been a lot said in the media @ all of the candidates. But what is always important is what is not mentioned or tucked away. So let me introduce you to the candidate. Go ahead. Get comfortable. Ladies & Gentlemen. It is my honor & responsibility to present, (insert drum roll, blaring trumpets & choir here) presidential candidate…..MIKE HUCKABEE! That’s right. Mike. That weight losing, joke telling, guitar playing, affable, story telling, Mike Huckabee. Now some of you are probably wondering just where all of this is going. Let me tell you why I consider Mike PUBLIC ENEMY #1, maybe even more so than the Mittster from Michigan. You see, Mike wants to change not only your life, but he’s willing to rewrite the Constitution to do it. How & why? Never thought you’d ask. The how, Mike made perfectly clear, in public & on the record. Why? Same thing. Let me tell you in his own words. As reported on MSNBC, among many other news organizations, Mike said, “Some of my opponents do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it’s a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that’s what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards (so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other & how we treat the family)” Unfortunately, he didn’t give the particulars of his interpretation of any standards, which, stragely enough, have been debated amongst many religious scholars. Although not reported as widely as this statement, Mike made a half hearted attempt to back pedal out of this sticky situation when pressed. He failed to convince anyone. I have to wonder if Mike is confused, duplicitous or is having memory problems because when interviewed on Meet The Press, he went on record to say, “The key issue of real faith is that it never can be forced on someone. And never would I want to use the government institutions to impose mine or anybody else’s faith or to restrict.” Huh? Which is it Mike? It’s bad enough Hillary is blamed for offering confusing, sometimes contradictory statements, do we have to add you to the list? Do you want to change the secular Democratic Republic into a theocracy, or not? Which side of your mouth will you use to answer the American public? Now before you reach for the “page back,” button, thinking that Uncle Rich is going on another diatribe against Christians, allow me to tell you that I am, indeed, going in that direction, but am taking a slight detour in favor of some Christians. That’s right. This time, I’m on your side. While showing a proclivity for religious domination, or not, as you can see, it’s hard to tell when he’s telling the truth, he seems to have a problem with governing, as well. Showing a problem with religion, in 1994 as Lt. Governor of Arkansas, Mike watched as then Democratic governor, Jim Guy Tucker, refused to sign a proclamation declaring Christian Heritage Week reasoning that he did not think it was appropriate to honor a particular faith. But when Governor Tucker went out of town, Republican Lt. Governor, Christian evangelical & Baptist minister Huckabee, as acting chief executive, enthusiastically went ahead & signed the proclamation anyway, saying that he was taking a stand against “Christophobia.” He said that it was a word he just made up. Source, Washington Post, December 21, 2007 It also seems that Mike likes to make things up, including a disrespect for the chain of command when it suits his purposes. This would seem to go hand in hand with stated plans for the Constitution. Not to put too fine a point on it, two other examples show his true colors. At a 1998 convention for Southern Baptists in Salt Lake City, Utah, he said, “I hope we answer the alarm clock & take this nation back for Christ.” Source, pretty much any major news publication. Take your pick. On his proficiency in understanding the world around him, in this case, the theory of evolution, & his thinking processes that might affect us all, he said, “I believe God created the heavens & the earth.” I wasn’t there when he did it, so how he did it, I don’t know.” Source, Associated Baptist Press, 12.05.07. Huh? What? Because he wasn’t there, he didn’t know how it came to be. But because he wasn’t there, he believes that there was one cause. And he wants to foist this kind of reasoning on the American public. On his respect for the judicial process & judges, he said, “There are some people who should simply get the heave-ho.” Source, The Guardian, 12.06.07. I guess he has his own way of dealing with people who don’t agree with him.
I promised to get to my Christian friends & I will. Till now, only non Christians, including atheists & agnostics have had reason to fear the possibility of theocratic rule. Well guess what kids? Even if you’re a Christian, you now have something else to worry about. As if there wasn’t enough. Let Uncle Rich tell you why. It comes as no surprise that the majority of people in the US are Christians, at least 76%. But what I didn’t know was that at least 34 denominations are identified with Christianity. Source, Adherents, National Survey of Religious Identification (NSRI), American Religious Identity (ARI). But, & this is a really big but, not all of them share the same “standards” as Mike. Are you a Methodist, Pentacostal, Mormon, (Oh yeah. His ideas are going to really fly with them), Christian Scientist or Mennonite? Well, if Mike has his way, you will be relegated to second class status as some of us have enjoyed under the Bush regime. Some of your taxes will be added to the billions spent annually on faith based initiatives which violate the principle of separation. Lest any of you still think that I might be against Christians, think again. Not even all Christian evangelicals want to be like Mike. He thought he would lead, & heavily lead, with the votes of Christian evangelicals in the South, especially in the SC primary. Wrong. He was edged out by John McCain, 33% to 30%. Source, Associated Baptist Press, 12.20.08. In my humble opinion, Mike, & many others like him have not yet completely grasped a few simple concepts. They have a troubling tendency of translating the black & white literalism of theology to the realism of the political world. If he wants to be president, he hasn’t yet realized that is a secular office in a secular government. He hasn’t yet realized, or is reluctant to admit, that the Constitution is a secular document that doesn’t contain word one that authorizes the President or anyone else in the government to make any kind of religious decision. That’s the way the founding fathers echoed the wishes of the people in writing. I would like to ask Mike a question. If elected, does he intend to be the president of ALL the people, just Christian people or the President of only certain kinds of Christian people? I would really like to hear his answer. In public & on the record, if he dares. JATFUR. RichK Related: Report Abuse | SoloVoce's blog | login or register to post comments | printer friendly version | Tags: Mike Huckabee | POLITICS | religion
Submitted by SoloVoce on Wed, 01/23/2008 - 4:35pm.
Smuncey, In respect to what's happened lately, it seems that you not only have a talent for great timing, but your talent for picking losers is increasing. RichK Submitted by Sunflower on Wed, 01/23/2008 - 8:33pm.
I asked on another thread that you tell us your reasons for supporting Fred Thompson, and now that he's withdrawn, you (may) support Mr. Romney. That question was followed by a request that you give a real answer - something besides bashing the Clintons which seems to be the only answer any conservative has been able to summon since W was appointed by the Supremes in 2000. When I have asked anyone, including family members, why they support Bush and his invasion of a country whose dictator supported by the Reagan administration (picture Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam), the only answer I ever received was how awful the Clintons are. So, again Mr. Munsey, I ask, "why do you support Mr. Romney (or Mr. Huckabee) and what qualifies them to lead this once great country? I also stated on that blog thread that I am no fan of the Clintons so bashing them in response to my question just doesn't do it for me. Thanks. Submitted by SoloVoce on Wed, 01/23/2008 - 9:13pm.
Sunflower, In many respects, I see your point & feel some of the pain. But at this juncture, I feel I have to tell you some rather unpleasant facts. 1. You might as well get comfortable because you will be waiting for a copy & paste job that will, in all probablility, still bash the Clinton regime without giving you any original thoughts. 2. Get used to the waiting game. 3. Get used to being ignored until you decide to give up. The answers just won't come. 4. If, by some unworldly chance, you might be offered an original thought that doesn't involve Clinton bashing, actually seeing an honest picture of reality, get your salts ready for the possibility of getting the vapors or swooning. You may also want to fire up the printer for the purpose of having hard copy evidence. 5. Get used to the little gems in life like a one line set up, such as, Conservative = good, liberal = bad. Don't worry, you won't be seeing things. It's a code or something. When all else fails, go to the party line. At least that's what I've been told. 6. Get used to any questions or facts you might have being turned into Clinton bashing. After all, it's the code. 7. If you want honest opinions, don't despair. We have plenty of people who are willing to discuss the issues, trade opinions & the like in an adult, sophisticated manner on a more intellectual plane. I bet that you have already encountered them. Stick to them. They are the heart & soul of these blogs & are to be respected. I'm sure that there are more, but I want to watch, "The Hunt for Red October." Good flick. See you on the flip side. I can't wait for any response that you might get. If you get one at all. JATFUR. RichK
Submitted by Marsha on Wed, 01/23/2008 - 9:24pm.
Please straighten me out if I have this wrong, you're against Huckabee because of what he says he'd like to do with organized religion, and the constitution which is essentially another "religious viewpoint" gone extreme on his part. Is that the only reason you think he's "Public Enemy #1"? I asked Freespeech this in another thread, what do you think of the possibility of Michael Bloomberg running as an Independent? Submitted by SoloVoce on Thu, 01/24/2008 - 6:57am.
Marsha, As I stated previously, it's not just what is said, but what isn't said. To answer you're main question, yes, but not the only one. I think he would be worst for the job because by his own words, he would, if he had his way, turn this into a theocracy. In the process he would thwart the basic ideals of the Constitution & exclude a sizeable number of people from the benefits of the Constitutuion. The things not said. As shown by Sunflower above, Mike doesn't seem to be aware that as President, he couldn't do what he said. He would not be allowed to. This leads me to conclude that he is either quite unaware of Constitutional rule, doesn't care @ copnstitutional law, or has plans to do it legally by force of sheer numbers. Think that's impossible? Think again. At one time, the law of the land allowed Native Americans to be rounded up & settled on inhospitable lands. Until the early part of the 20th century, the law of the land denied women certain rights including the right to vote. Until the middle of the 20th century, the same law of the land applied to Blacks. All you need is enough like minded people to change any law. Those are just a few well documented examples. To be honest, I don't know that much @ Bloomberg. Since he kept a very low profile until recently, he was below my radar, but I will be paying more attention to his policies. Hope I answered your question. JATFUR. RichK Submitted by ClayCountyCurmudgeon on Thu, 01/24/2008 - 8:20am.
Sunflower - Maybe I can comment in the absence of SMunsey. 1. You might notice that in your haste to chastise him for not answering objectively you tend to throw in any criticism you can of Bush. Including saying he was appointed by the Supremes. That always comes up with Libs in their criticism of Bush, the bottom line, and Libs will never get over it - is that Bush WON. The election was scrutinized, evaluated, studied, and studied again - and Bush WON. The Global Warming elf and the Breck Girl did not win, plain and simple. Get over it, put on your big girl pants, and when you quit whining about that, then criticize Conservatives for bringing up the Clintons. 2. I think in all fairness of your coninued stalking of SMunsey to provide an answer, why don't you set the example for all that is fair and provide your answer on who you support and why? RichK, maybe you would want to do the same? Only fair it seems. 3. OK - I will start. I am not sure who I will support, but you can bet it will be either Romney or McCain. My reasons (even though you did not askme). They are Republicans, plain and simple. Now, there have been Republicans I have not voted for, but never a Dem I have voted for. You see, I tend to believe in personal accountability (no waiting on the front porch waiting on FEMA trailers complaining to the local press), less government intervention in my personal life, not financing bad lifestyles (healthcare) of our citizens and noncitizens, and yes - morals in government. So far, Romney seems to come the closest, not ideal, but the closest. Does he have faults? - sure, they all do - but do me a favor and in your reply on who you support, try not to criticize Romney or the other Republicans and just tell us who you support and why. After, all - it is only fair isn't it?
Submitted by SoloVoce on Thu, 01/24/2008 - 9:01am.
CCC, Good points, but not quite complete, is as is usual. Do LibDems contest the fact that Bush won? Not many. What they contest is the manner in which he won. Hardly the American way. Or is it? What the ConReps conveniently & consistently leave out of the equation are the ilegally jammed phone calls in some states or the practice disuading blocks of potential Democratic leaning voters. Whenever these items, apparently missed by ConReps in the news stories are brought up, the usual & rather pathetic response is, "What dirty tricks? What phone jamming?" This is normally accompanied by an innocent look combined with righteous indignation. Perhaps research is only supposed to be one way. I can only assume, at this point, that the LibDems will put on their big girl pants & quit whining when the ConReps will put on THEIR big girl pants & quit their endless whining @ Cliinton getting impeached for lying @ getting boom boom in the WH (somehow thought to be much worse than anything W could possibly do) while trying to convince the country that W is still a good guy & has a good administration which is doing just such a really swell job, all evidence to the contrary as is shown by 3/4 of this country & an even larger percentage of the world. Maybe they'll quit whining when Bush stops complaining @ the processes that caught him doing something wrong instead of the fact that he DID do something wrong. I really kon't know. You'll just have to ask some LibDems, not an independent who agrees with most that this spectacle has devolved into a pathetic picture of how a country should be run. Who would I support? My answer is still the same as it was in a reply @ a month or so ago. I, as with many Americans, am still undecided. The only accurate thing I can say is that I know who I will definitely not vote for. (damn! Ended a sentance in a preposition. Many apologies) I like some ideas McCain puts forth, but am honestly concerned @ his age & physical condition. Those alone are not enough to totally disqualify him, though. But they are a concern. On the Democratic side, I've come to listen more to Obama than I did at first. To borrow your phraseology, I wish he & the Clintons would put their big girl pants on & behave like adults. Once again, pathetic. On the bright side of the news, Slim Whitman is alive & well & it's less than 3 months till opening day at friendly confines of beautiful Wrigley Field. Let's play two! JATFUR. RichK
Submitted by lilyslore on Thu, 01/24/2008 - 11:17am.
I'm amused with this thread. (And not in a smug way.) I am also getting the feeling that just about everyone is frustrated with all of the candidates. I also have to agree with all of you that this year's crop is extremely poor. This seems to be a case of "my crook can beat up your crook". I also would like to say I am tired of hearing about the Republican dirty tricks. I am sure it happens in every election on both sides. I will never forget the filthy tactics Lawton Chiles engaged in with his "win" over Jeb Bush. Keeping in mind I am sick of the Bush family, I felt what the Chiles campaign did was not only reprehensible it should also have landed the conspirators in jail. Equally stomach turning was Jeb Bush being overly gracious in naming something after Chiles once the miserable old he-coon croaked like a French entree. (At this point in time, I am hazy on this subject. It's definitly age related.) My point being, there is nothing but dirty tricks permeating all of politics. For the life of me, I really don't understand why I am criticised for stating I may just sit it out this year. Aside from voting for the Hometown Democracy Amendment, should it be on the ballot, I don't see a single candidate currently standing worth the price of gasoline to drive to the polls. Honestly, no matter who wins this year's race, I (along with many) will not be a happy camper. However, for all the negatives all the candidates bring to the table, I am extremely confident that the country will survive whatever "temporary occupant in the White House" emerges victorious. Lily's Lore "I don't ever want to be rescued And I don't ever want to be saved I got a feelin' that I'm gonna be alive forever Dancin' on the edge of a grave..." Jim Steinman Submitted by ClayCountyCurmudgeon on Thu, 01/24/2008 - 11:19am.
RK - Don't go there over voting problems. As an independent, you must know both sides have their "tactics," including dead voters. Though again - I just asked an objective question (who supporting and why) and more Bush hating came through. Just once, try to reply without even mentioning Bush, it is good therapy. You must let go... breath deep, count back from 10...or 1000 Agree on Slim Whitman, I for one was scared he was long gone and singing with Elvis.
Submitted by SoloVoce on Thu, 01/24/2008 - 12:29pm.
Lily & CCC, It's not just your feeling of frustration. It's been no secret that voters are frustrated with choosing the lesser of two evils, something that has been covered on the blog before, & now, we have name calling & bickering being kicked up a notch. These children should receive a good swift kick in the pants. Never mind a time out. I think that if one had access to a, "way back," machine, we would find dirty tricks on both sides of any person who even remotely looked like a politician. And speaking of...... CCC, The only time, other than my last statement, in this thread that I mentioned Clinton or bashing, & there was very little of that, was in two remarks @ smuncey to Sunfower. In fact, in item #7, titled, The Waiting Game, no names were mentioned, but you were one of the people I was thinking @. I won't claim to know all of the dirty tricks, but as you know, I'm from Chicago, one of my favorite movies is, "All the Presidents Men," (great journalism, probably the best) and I've had a front row seat for a # of years. And yes, I agree that both sides show no hesitation. As far as any dirty tricks etc are concerned, that was in direct reply to your incomplete description (and you're not alone by any stretch) of the Bush win. Nice try. No kewpie doll. I am at a loss as to your comment @ asking an objective question of who I might support. No where in my reply is Bush even mentioned, let alone bashed. Are sure that you're reading the right reply? I think I might have heard a song by Slim Whitman once. Before I moved to Florida, I never heard of him. RichK Submitted by Sunflower on Thu, 01/24/2008 - 4:29pm.
Thank you Curmudge for filling in for Smunsey and once again putting me in my place. I can usually count on you to disagree with everything I say, but I think the first amendment is still in effect, so have at it, and I'll feel free to state my opinions as well. As an Independent (No Party), I have not decided on which of the current candidates, if any, will get my vote in November. So far, I am not convinced that any of them will restore the constitution. November is still several months away and a lot can happen between now and then. I do think that following strict party lines (i.e. voting for someone just because they are a republican and for no other reason is not a wise decision). Lily - I agree with you. For the first time in my adult life I am considering not voting for POTUS since I'm too tired of voting for the lesser of two evils and not knowing for sure if my vote will even be counted. I may write in someone, but will decide on that later. And I too, am very tired of all the dirty tricks on BOTH sides of the aisle. I will vote for the HTD amendment should that be on the ballot and to restore the BCC to 5 commissioners, should that also be on the ballot. Rich, I think you and I are on the same page on many things, but I'm not sure about Slim Whitman.
Submitted by Baxley on Thu, 01/24/2008 - 11:28pm.
Rich, You ARE fired up about this, huh? Knowing you as we do from the blogs, you are certainly being consistent. But, me thinks a little paranoid too. In the very unlikely event that Rockin' Rev. Huckabee ends up in the Oval office, he can't just up and change the Constitution one weekend while everyone's sleeping in. Remember Congress - you know, Democratically controlled Congress. I always enjoy your rants, though this one was a little long-winded. I honestly think your right to criticize religion is safe for a very long time - and it should be. Huckabee will soon be going the way of Uncle Fred. Despite some concerns brought up in another blog about McCain's immigration position, I have decided that it will be McCain that I vote for. I don't agree that it is the lesser of 2 evils, but rather there is no perfect candidate. Is there ever? As I rode around today wishing I had a job site to visit, I thought a lot about which Rep. candidate I should vote for. It came down to this - Commander in Chief. The mental debate was over quickly. With the all-too-real possibility of a nuclear armed terrorist group lurking, I want my President to have a little military experience, some foreign affairs experience, and a will that has been tested. John McCain. And for you Rich, I don't think he's threatened to outlaw atheism either. Submitted by SoloVoce on Fri, 01/25/2008 - 8:23am.
Bax, Thanks for the comments. Interesting note. Like many others, Mike was under my radar screen for the first half of the campaign season. It wasn't until he started to gain national attention, that I took notice. One of the reasons, and anyone can do the research on this, was his constant connection with Christian evangelicals. Another note on this point, in the overwhelming % of stories @ him, people who were interviewed managed to say that they were backing him because of what amounted to "Christian values," or "Christian outlook," not necessarily what would be best for ALL Americans. This is not a personal attack on Christianity, just to ease the minds of my Christian friends out there. It is a matter of public record if they want to do the research. Yes, it was long winded, for a reason. Given the nature of the subject of which I was writing, I wanted to submit evidence that Mike provided, not just opinion on my part. I, for one, like the, "head 'em off at the pass," strategy the best. Better pick a better word than paranoid. Given the fact that the points I made were not only factual, but the facts were provided by Mike himself, the word doesn't fit properly. Besides, as someone once said, just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean there's no one out there trying to get you. As far as the possibility of Mike getting into the oval office & changing things, that was covered in replies by Sunflower & to Marsha. Even though I'm not an atheist, it would not surprise me if would try to do that. I know that Mike is short on $, but I'm not ready to count him out just yet. Many strange things, the walrus said, can happen in a short time. And the time is getting short. I'm still undecided. That might be a bad thing. But I'm going to give myself as much time as is allowed to make the best decision I can. Personally, I wish I could write in someone like you, Marsha, Angela, OneMann or CCC. You people sometimmes show more sense than many of the other candidates. But in the end, it would probably be more of a curse than blessing on your collective heads. I wouldn't do that to you. Hope every one has a great weekend. Enjoy. JATFUR. RichK People are talking about ...Here are the recent blog postings with the most comments. |
Recent comments |
But, in music as in politics, to each his own (except our musical choices don't affect anyone but ourselves and perhaps other household members).
Is Hillary Clinton, with here Socialist/Progressive style. Hhmmmm "Lets raise taxes, so we can pay for everyone to have everything for free". Hillary's Ideal's are un-American. She is the real American Public Enemy #1. I would gladly accept the Huckster's Politics over the Clintons.
Steven P Munsey A+, MCP, IASO Orange Park | Green Cove Springs munsey13@comcast.net