Mike has the answers.

No, I am not claiming that Mike Huckabee has all the solutions to all our problems.  I am, however, saying that Mike can answer the tough questions.  Let's see Hilary Clinton do that!  In the past week, I have seen Mr. Huckabee on Hannity & Colmes and Fox News Sunday.  Both times, Mike was asked some very tough questions.  In both cases, he had answers that made sense, were direct, and didn't dance around the question. The questions didn't make him flinch, they didn't make him the least bit nervous.  I respect that.  Way to go, Mike!  Keep up the good work!

 

My 2008 Decision.

Well, I have finally made my decision for the presidential candidate I support in 2008. I've read about him, and he is the one consistent candidate who has stood firmly on issues without wavering, flip-flopping or anything like that. He recently surged to second place behind Governor Romni in a poll related to the upcoming Iowa primary.

That candidate is Mike Huckabee. I will let him speak for himself. This is borrowed from his site. It is his stands on various issues combined into one document.
mike_on_the_issues_highres.pdf
SANCTITY OF LIFE
I support and have always supported passage of a
constitutional amendment to protect the right to
life. My convictions regarding the sanctity of life
have always been clear and consistent, without
equivocation or wavering. I believe that Roe v.
Wade should be over-turned.
MARRIAGE
I support and have always supported passage of a
federal constitutional amendment that denes
marriage as a union between one man and one
woman. As President, I will ght for passage of
this amendment. My personal belief is that
marriage is between one man and one woman,
for life.
HEALTH CARE
Our health care system is making our businesses
non-competitive in the global economy. It is time
to recognize that jobs don't need health care,
people do, and move from employer-based to
consumer-based health care.
TAXES
I support the Fair Tax.
EDUCATION
I have been a strong, consistent supporter of the
rights of parents to home school their children, of
creating more charter schools, and of public
school choice.
EDUCATION
We need a clear distinction between federal and
state roles in education. While there is value in the
"No Child Left Behind" law's eort to set high
standards, states must be allowed to develop
their own benchmarks.
IMMIGRATION
We have to know who is coming into our country,
where they are going, and why they are here. We
need a fence along our border with Mexico,
electronic in some places, and more
highly-trained border agents.
WAR ON TERROR
I believe that we are currently engaged in a world
war. Radical Islamic fascists have declared war on
our country and our way of life. They have sworn
to annihilate each of us who believe in a free
society, all in the name of a perversion of religion
and an impersonal god. We go to great extremes
to save lives, they go to great extremes to take
them. This war is not a conventional war, and
these terrorists are not a conventional enemy. I
will ght the war on terror with the intensity and
single-mindedness that it deserves.
2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS
The Second Amendment is primarily about
tyranny and self-defense, not hunting. The
Founding Fathers wanted us to be able to defend
ourselves from our own government, if need be,
and from all threats to our lives and property.
Paid for by Huckabee for President, Inc.
www.mikehuckabee.com
To Learn More About Mike Huckabee Visit www.MikeHuckabee.com

Unbelieveable stupidity!

Read the article at this link and tell me if it angers you as much as it does me:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,308858,00.html

 

To the superintendant I say "Hey, let's worry more about actual explicit sexual behavior and leave innocent hugs alone."

 

This morning on Fox and Friends, Mr. McGowen said that hugging in the halls could create "dangerous situations."  Situations like what? 

delayed exits during fire drills?  Perhaps Mr. McGowen is Baptist and fears that hugging will lead to dancing? I'm sorry, I don't mean to appear to be mocking Mr. McGowen, but let's be honest, he kind of brought it on himself. Innocent hugs will not cause overcrowding and "dangerous situations."  The only dangerous situations hugging can create are poorly written and implemented policies like the one in Mascoutah, Illinois where kids are punished for showing innocent signs of caring for their friends.  What's next, banning affectionate pats on the shoulder because it might cause damage to the rotator cuff?  Hmm, or maybe winking at classmates because it can cause eye damage?  I realize my joking hypotheticals use medical problems to make the point, and it wasn't for medical reasons that hugs aren't allowed in Mascoutah, but look at the utter ridiculousness of my examples.  We all know winking can't cause eye damage...right?  So, how can hugging be so bad as to be a bannable offense>?  It is illogical, stupid, and it makes me really angry because it is an infringement on personal rights that has about as much merit as trying to ban the wind from blowing.  So, all you kids in Mascoutah, I dare you, hug someone today.  Make it so the entire school has to get detention.  Maybe then the school board will see the silliness of punishing hugging.  I know, I'm encouraging rebellion, but it isn't sexual rebellion...just a very huggable rebellion.

Let me repeat myself...just stop!

I am really really frustrated with a certain church in Kansas right now and I need to vent.

I know I have said it before, but to the members of the Westboro Baptist Church I again say...just stop!

  None of you are prophets, and no one I know who believes in God wants anything to do with your vile, reprehensible concept of a hate-filled, vengeful God.  If you want to believe this melarkey, keep it confined to your little building there in Kansas, but stop pushing it at military funerals and stop using ridiculous lawsuits like the one filed by Ernie Chambers.  Mr. Chambers is slightly more intelligent than you folks from Westboro, but not much.  His lawsuit is ridiculous, I grant you that, and has no merit.  Your brief you filed to get the suit dismissed doesn't either, unfortunately.  You may be prophets in your own mind, but you don't fit the biblical definition of a prophet.

 

What you truly are, oh Westboro Baptist, is angry, hateful, bigoted, self-appointed moral dictators.  I don't know it for sure, but I suspect that people the likes of Hitler would be welcome at your so-called church.  Just give Fred Phelps a hitleresque moustache and get it over with.  If I seem to be speaking exceedingly tongue in cheek it is because that Mr. Phelps, his wife and family and their self-proclaimed church make me so angry that if I don't inject some kind of humor into what I write here I will positively explode from sinking to their level and claiming that God will smite them for their misrepresentation of who He is.  I make no such claim, but by the same token, if God did decide to strike them all down, I can't say I blame Him.  I know how I, a mere human being, feel when people speak poorly of me or make claims about me that are untrue, unfair and unjust.  I imagine God must feel the same about the Phelps' and Westboro Baptist.  It's ironic that Westboro would tell us we're too tolerant of homosexuals. If the God they claim to believe in is the God of the bible, He was (and is), in the form of Jesus Christ, vastly more tolerant than any member of Westboro baptist could presently hope to be.  Jesus treated people that His contemporary society condemned with a respect and compassion that most people can only hope to aspire to. The adulterous woman and the woman at the well (the Samaritan woman) come most readily to mind.  The Pharisees were within moments of stoning the adulterous woman and Christ (rightly so) pointed out that they had no right, no real room to stand in condemnation of her when they, themselves, were just as sinful.

 

Let me pause here and say this: I, personally, do not think homosexuality is right. It is not what God created us for.  That said, I do not hate the homosexual person, but I do hate the sin they commit.  Having said that, however, let me say that I don't tell anyone I know who is a homosexual how to live their lives.  It isn't my place to do so.  I have my own vast number of sins I have committed (and confessed to God every day) that don't allow me the right or privelege to dictate to others how to live their lives.  I do not have an in-your-face style of expressing my beliefs.  In fact I find myself balking when I hear people who do.  A prime example are these people I have seen (during good weather) preaching at the top of their lungs outside the student union at UNL's city campus.  I don't claim these people have no right to their beliefs, but it bothers me that they feel a need to shout it as loud as they do.  It's as if they feel a need to be a voice crying in the wilderness.  I feel no such need, and honestly wonder what such preaching actually accomplishes.  I've heard people mock them in passing, and I get the general sense that no one is attracted to that preaching style.  I sure haven't seen anyone saying "Hey, I think I need to talk to that shouting preacher about God.  I really need to hear his views."

 

Now, I bring this up to make a point.  It is my firm belief that as long as they protest at military funerals and respond to childish lawsuits like Mr. Chambers filed against the Almighty, people will want nothing to do with the message of Westboro.  Even more importantly, though, as long as Westboro preaches hatred, intolerance, and a God who is vengeful and not loving, who bestows punishment and not grace and mercy, no one will want anything to do with their message either.  The old saying goes you attract more bees with honey than you do with vinegar.  Well, in much the same way, you attract more converts with love and compassion than you do with condemnation and being judgemental.

 

Okay, I got all that off my chest.  I feel better now.