FoI requests concerning illegal immigration, State government offenses

FOI reques to the U of A Athletic Dept. re: broadcasting sports in Spanish

1 Comment


Joe McCutchen

2916
Heather Oaks Way

Fort Smith, AR 72908

(479)
646-8261

joeusa@cox.net

December 5, 2007

 

Matt Shanklin

University of Arkansas

Broyles Athletic Center

PO 7777

Fayetteville, AR 72702

 

Re:       FOI request
concerning broadcasting in Spanish – via hard copy and email at shanklin@uark.edu

 

Dear Mr. Shanklin:

 

I hereby request the
following documents pursuant to the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act.   Please include documents in any format
including but not limited to faxes, emails, computer files, or other forms of
written communication.

 

1)         Copies
of any documentation showing the source and amount of money spent to create or
operate a Hispanic radio network, or television programming, or other Spanish
language media for Razorback football, baseball, basketball, or other sports.

 

2)         Copies
of any documents which would show what markets and media are being used to
broadcast radio or television programming of Spanish language Razorback sports
events.

 

This is my firm promise to pay the costs of
reproduction, but if the cost is expected to exceed $50, please call me first
at 479-646-8261.

 

 

Kindest regards,

 

 

 

 

 

Joe McCutchen

 

Huckabee lies on scholarships for illegals, Huckabee shameful record, Presidential Candidates

Huckabee on Scholarships for Illegals: Lies, Deceit & misrepresentation

127 Comments 



Download critical document for viewing 
In the You Tube Debate held last week, Mike Huckabee was asked
the following question about sponsoring a bill proposing tuition cuts
to illegal aliens graduating from Arkansas high schools:
“Governor Huckabee, while governor of Arkansas, you gave illegal
aliens a discount for college in Arkansas by allow them to pay lower
in-state tuition rates. However, we have thousands of military
members currently serving our country in Iraq with children at
home. If these children chose to move to Arkansas to attend college,
they would have to pay three times the tuition rate that illegal aliens
pay. Would you support a federal law which would require any
state that gives these tuition rates to illegal aliens to give the same
rates to the children of our military members?”
Huckabee answered:
“Thank you very much. Ashley, first of all, let me just express that
you’re a little misinformed. We never passed a bill that gave special
privileges to the children of illegals to go to college.
Now, let me tell you what I did do. I supported the bill that would’ve
allowed those children who had been in our schools their entire
school life the opportunity to have the same scholarship that their
peers had, who had also gone to high school with them and sat in
the same classrooms.
They couldn’t just move in in their senior year and go to college. It
wasn’t about out of state tuition. It was an academic, meritorious
scholarship called the Academic Challenge Scholarship.
Now, let me tell you a couple of provisions of it. And, by the way, it
didn’t pass. It passed the House but got in the Senate and got caught
up in the same kind of controversy that this country is caught up in.
And here’s what happened. This bill would’ve said that if you came
here, not because you made the choice but because your parents did,
that we’re not going to punish a child because the parent committed
a crime.
That’s not what we typically do in this country.
It said that if you’d sat in our schools from the time you’re five or
six-years old and you had become an A-plus student, you’d
completed the core curriculum, you were an exceptional student,
and you also had to be drug and alcohol-free — and the other
provision, you had to be applying for citizenship.
It accomplished two things that we knew we wanted to do, and that
is, number one, bring people from illegal status to legal status.
And the second thing, we wanted people to be taxpayers, not taxtakers.
And that’s what that provision did.
And finally, would we give that provision to the children of
veterans, personally? What we’ve done with not just the children of
veterans, but most importantly, veterans is disgraceful in this
country.
And that’s why I proposed a veterans bill of rights that, if anything,
would give our veterans the most exceptional privileges of all,
because they are the ones who have earned all of our freedom —
every single one of them.”
Discussion of Huckabee’s Lies, Deceit and Misrepresentation
Instead of being candid, Huckabee tried to confuse the issue by
interjecting information about the Arkansas Academic Challenge
Program, codified at Ark. Code Ann. § 6-82-1001, et seq. (a copy of
which is enclosed). The Academic Challenge Program is based on
being an Arkansas resident and makes no mention of the children of
illegal aliens. In addition, the truth is that Huckabee played no part
in the Academic Challenge Program and that it was enacted with the
passing of Arkansas Act 352 of 1991, becoming law more than four
years before Huckabee began his first time as Arkansas Governor in
1996.
Mr. Huckabee sought to avoid questions about the bill that he was
really asked about, the Access to Postsecondary Education Act of
2005, HB1525. A full copy of that bill is attached. Huckabee can
be viewed promoting HB1525 during his State of the State Address
at http://www.immigrationwatchdog.com/?p=5193.
A mere perusal of HB1525 reveals that Huckabee was deceptive in
giving his response. For example, Huckabee indicated that the bill
required children to attend schools in Arkansas their “entire school
life,” or “from the time you’re five or six-years old.” However,
Section 1(b) of HB1525 only required three years of attendance in
an Arkansas school.
Huckabee claimed that students had to be an “a A-plus student” and
that they must have “completed the core curriculum,” and “be drug
and alcohol free.” The truth is that not even a single one of these
requirements is contained in HB1525. HB1525 was not a merit
based bill.
Huckabee also was untruthful when he said that the bill would
“bring people from illegal status to legal status.” The bill did not
require legal status. Rather, it only required filing an affidavit
saying that you intend to legalize your immigration status. Contrary
to what Huckabee said, HB1525 did not even require proof of even
attempting to obtain legal status. Huckabee also tried to deflect
attention away from his actions by saying that the bill would make
people taxpayers. Again, the bill contained no such requirement
because proof of legal status was not part of HB1525.
Summary of Huckabee’s Lies, Deceit and Misrepresentation
In sum, a total of five statements made by Huckabee in his response
to one single question were lies.
The lies were (as emphasized below):
(1) “I supported the bill that would’ve allowed those children who
had been in our schools their entire school life the opportunity t

o
have the same scholarship that their peers had, who had also gone to
high school with them and sat in the same classrooms.”
(2) “It was an academic, meritorious scholarship called the
Academic Challenge Scholarship.”
(3) “It said that if you’d sat in our schools from the time you’re
five or six-years old and you had become an A-plus student, you’d
completed the core curriculum, you were an exceptional student,
and you also had to be drug and alcohol-free — and the other
provision, you had to be applying for citizenship.”
(4) “It accomplished two things that we knew we wanted to do, and
that is, number one, bring people from illegal status to legal
status.”
(5) “And the second thing, we wanted people to be taxpayers, not
tax-takers. And that’s what that provision did.”
It’s one thing to flip flop on a position that is the most important
issue in the campaign.
It’s a vastly different thing to tell millions of Americans numerous
lies about your record on the issue.
In the You Tube Debate held last week, Mike Huckabee was
asked the following question about sponsoring a bill proposing
tuition cuts to illegal aliens graduating from Arkansas high
schools:
“Governor Huckabee, while governor of Arkansas, you gave illegal
aliens a discount for college in Arkansas by allow them to pay lower
in-state tuition rates. However, we have thousands of military
members currently serving our country in Iraq with children at
home. If these children chose to move to Arkansas to attend college,
they would have to pay three times the tuition rate that illegal aliens
pay. Would you support a federal law which would require any
state that gives these tuition rates to illegal aliens to give the same
rates to the children of our military members?”
Huckabee answered:
“Thank you very much. Ashley, first of all, let me just express that
you’re a little misinformed. We never passed a bill that gave special
privileges to the children of illegals to go to college.
Now, let me tell you what I did do. I supported the bill that would’ve
allowed those children who had been in our schools their entire
school life the opportunity to have the same scholarship that their
peers had, who had also gone to high school with them and sat in
the same classrooms.
They couldn’t just move in in their senior year and go to college. It
wasn’t about out of state tuition. It was an academic, meritorious
scholarship called the Academic Challenge Scholarship.
Now, let me tell you a couple of provisions of it. And, by the way, it
didn’t pass. It passed the House but got in the Senate and got caught
up in the same kind of controversy that this country is caught up in.
And here’s what happened. This bill would’ve said that if you came
here, not because you made the choice but because your parents did,
that we’re not going to punish a child because the parent committed
a crime.
That’s not what we typically do in this country.
It said that if you’d sat in our schools from the time you’re five or
six-years old and you had become an A-plus student, you’d
completed the core curriculum, you were an exceptional student,
and you also had to be drug and alcohol-free — and the other
provision, you had to be applying for citizenship.
It accomplished two things that we knew we wanted to do, and that
is, number one, bring people from illegal status to legal status.
And the second thing, we wanted people to be taxpayers, not taxtakers.
And that’s what that provision did.
And finally, would we give that provision to the children of
veterans, personally? What we’ve done with not just the children of
veterans, but most importantly, veterans is disgraceful in this
country.
And that’s why I proposed a veterans bill of rights that, if anything,
would give our veterans the most exceptional privileges of all,
because they are the ones who have earned all of our freedom —
every single one of them.”
Instead of being candid, Huckabee tried to confuse the issue by
interjecting information about the Arkansas Academic Challenge
Program, codified at Ark. Code Ann. § 6-82-1001, et seq. (a copy of
which is enclosed). Truth is that Huckabee played no part in the
Academic Challenge Program and that it was enacted by Arkansas
Act 352 of 1991, becoming law more than four years before
Huckabee began his first time as Arkansas Governor in 1996.
Mr. Huckabee sought to avoid questions about the bill that he was
really asked about, HB1525. A full copy of that bill is attached.
Huckabee can be viewed promoting HB1525 during his State of the
State Address at http://www.immigrationwatchdog.com/?p=5193.
A mere perusal of HB1525 reveals that Huckabee was deceptive in
giving his response. For example, Huckabee indicated that the bill
required children to attend schools in Arkansas their “entire school
life,” or “from the time you’re five or six-years old.” However,
Section 1(b) of HB1525 only required three years of attendance in
an Arkansas school.
Huckabee claimed that students had to be an “a A-plus student” and
that they must have “completed the core curriculum,” and “be drug
and alcohol free.” The truth is that not even a single one of these
requirements is contained in HB1525. HB1525 was not a merit
based bill.
Huckabee also was untruthful when he said that the bill would
“bring people from illegal status to legal status.” The bill did not
require legal status. Rather, it only required filing an affidavit
saying that you intend to legalize your immigration status. Contrary
to what Huckabee said, HB

1525 did not even require proof of even
attempting to obtain legal status. Huckabee also tried to deflect
attention away from his actions by saying that the bill would make
people taxpayers. Again, the bill contained no such requirement
because proof of legal status was not part of HB1525.
In sum, a total of five statements made by Huckabee in his response
to one single question were lies.
The lies were (as emphasized below):
(1) “I supported the bill that would’ve allowed those children who
had been in our schools their entire school life the opportunity to
have the same scholarship that their peers had, who had also gone to
high school with them and sat in the same classrooms.”
(2) “It was an academic, meritorious scholarship called the
Academic Challenge Scholarship.”
(3) “It said that if you’d sat in our schools from the time you’re
five or six-years old and you had become an A-plus student, you’d
completed the core curriculum, you were an exceptional student,
and you also had to be drug and alcohol-free — and the other
provision, you had to be applying for citizenship.”
(4) “It accomplished two things that we knew we wanted to do, and
that is, number one, bring people from illegal status to legal
status.”
(5) “And the second thing, we wanted people to be taxpayers, not
tax-takers. And that’s what that provision did.”
It’s one thing to flip flop on a position that is the most important
issue in the campaign.
It’s a vastly different thing to tell millions of Americans numerous
lies about your record on the issue.
6-82-1001. Legislative findings and declarations of public necessity.
The General Assembly hereby recognizes that taking the proper
course work in high school is essential for success in college.
Arkansas high school students who complete the recommended
precollegiate or technical preparation core curriculum score
significantly higher on standardized preadmissions tests and are
more likely to be successful in college. Because the State of
Arkansas also benefits from the academic success of well-prepared
college students, there is hereby established the Arkansas Academic
Challenge Scholarship Program, a college scholarship plan to
promote academic achievement and encourage academically
prepared Arkansas high school graduates to enroll in the state’s
colleges and universities and to encourage students to enter the field
of teaching for the purpose of teaching in subject matter areas of
critical teacher shortage or in geographical areas of critical teacher
shortage in the state.
History. Acts 1991, No. 352, § 1; 1991, No. 362, § 1; 1993, No.
1170, § 1; 1997, No. 977, § 4; 1999, No. 858, § 11; 2003, No. 1798,
§ 1. 6-82-1005. Eligibility.
(a) Eligibility for the Arkansas Academic Challenge Scholarship
Program shall be based on the criteria set forth in this section as
well as program rules and regulations adopted pursuant to this
subchapter by the Department of Higher Education.
(b) An applicant shall be eligible for an award from this program
if the applicant meets all of these criteria:
(1) The applicant graduated from an Arkansas high school on or
after March 5, 1991;
(2) The applicant has been a resident of the State of Arkansas for
at least twelve (12) months prior to graduation from an Arkansas
high school, and the applicant’s parent or parents or guardian or
guardians have maintained Arkansas residency for the same period
of time;
(3) The applicant is a citizen of the United States or is a permanent
resident alien;
(4) The applicant is accepted for admission at an approved
institution of higher education as a full-time first-time freshman as
defined by the department and enrolls in an approved institution
within twelve (12) months of the applicant’s high school graduation;
(5)(A)(i) Except as provided in subdivision (b)(5)( of this section,
the applicant has successfully completed the core curriculum
established by the State Board of Education and the Arkansas
Higher Education Coordinating Board pursuant to § 6-61-217.
(ii) An applicant who graduates from an Arkansas high school
after December 31, 2001, but before December 1, 2009, and who
meets the provisions of subdivisions (b)(1)-(4) of this section but
who has not completed the core curriculum defined in this
subdivision (b)(5)(A) by the end of the senior year of high school
due to the unavailability of the courses in the applicant’s high school
shall have a grace period of twelve (12) months from the date of
high school graduation in which to make up any course deficiencies
required for program eligibility.
An applicant who graduates from an Arkansas high school after
December 31, 2009, shall have:
(i) Successfully completed the Smart Core Curriculum as
established by the Department of Education; and
(ii)(a) Demonstrated proficiency in the application of knowledge
and skills in reading and writing literacy and mathematics by
passing the end-of-course examinations as may be developed by the
Department of Education and as may be designated by the
Department of Higher Education for this purpose.
(b) “End-of-course” examinations means those examinations
defined in § 6-15-419;
(6)(A) The applicant who graduates from an Arkansas high school
after December 31, 2001, must have achieved the following:
(i) A grade point average of 3.0 on a 4.0 scale in the set of core
curriculum courses if enrolling at an approved four-year institution;
or
(ii) A grade point average of 2.75 on a 4.0 scale in the set of core
curriculum courses if enrolling at an approved two-year institution;
and
(iii)(a) These revised grade point average requirements may be
reduced to no lower than a 2.5 on a 4.0 scale by a rules change by
the Department of Higher Education if it is determined by the
department, based on the most recent evaluation of the program’s
operation, that the change to a 3.0 or 2.75 grade point average on a
4.0 scale would unduly reduce the number of low-income or
disadvantaged students who would therwise be eligible for the
program.
(b) At the Department of Higher Education’s discretion, the
Department of Higher Education may make such a reduction for
admissions to institutions with a high percentage of students
receiving full Pell Grants upon petition to the Department of Higher
Education by the institution.
(The applicant scored nineteen (19) or above on the American
College Test composite or the equivalent as defined by the
Department of Higher Education.
(C)(i) The Department of Higher Education is authorized to
develop selection criteria through program rules and regulations that
combine an applicant’s American College Test or equivalent score
and grade point average in the core curriculum into a selection
index.
(ii) Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivisions (b)(6)(A) and
(b)(6)( of this section, this selection index shall be employed as an
alternative selection process for applicants who achieve a grade
point average above 2.75 if attending an approved two-year
institution or 3.0 if attending a four-year institution on a 4.0 scale in
the set of core curriculum courses defined in subdivision (b)(5)(A)
of this section or for applicants who have an American College Test
composite or equivalent score greater than nineteen (19).
(D)(i) The applicant demonstrates financial need as defined by the
department.
(i) In calculating financial need for applicants who graduate from
an Arkansas high school after December 31, 1998, but before
January 1, 2001, the following criteria shall be used:
(a) An applicant whose family includes one (1) unemancipated
child shall have average family adjusted gross income over the
previous two (2) years not exceeding seventy thousand dollars
($70,000) per year at the time of application to the program;
(b) An applicant whose family includes two (2) unemancipated
children shall have average family adjusted gross income over the
previous two (2) years not exceeding seventy-five thousand dollars
($75,000) per year at the time of application to the program;
(c) An applicant whose family includes three (3) or more
unemancipated children shall have average family adjusted gross
income over the previous two (2) years not exceeding eighty
thousand dollars ($80,000) per year at the time of application to the
program, plus for families with more than three (3) unemancipated
children, an additional five thousand
dollars ($5,000) per year for each additional child;
(d) Any applicant whose family includes more than one (1)
unemancipated child enrolled full time at an approved institution of
higher education shall be entitled to an additional ten thousand
dollars ($10,000) of adjusted gross income for each additional child
when the department calculates financial need; and
(e) If the applicant is an adopted child who was at least twelve
(12) years of age at the time of adoption and if the applicant’s family
includes unemancipated adopted children who were at least twelve
(12) years of age at the time of adoption, the adoptive family shall
be entitled to an additional ten thousand dollars ($10,000) of
adjusted gross income per adopted unemancipated child.
(iii) In calculating financial need for applicants who graduated
from an Arkansas high school after December 31, 2000, but before
December 31, 2004, the following criteria shall be used:
(a) An applicant whose family includes one (1) unemancipated
child shall have average family adjusted gross income over the
previous two (2) years not exceeding fifty thousand dollars
($50,000) per year at the time of application to the program;
(b) An applicant whose family includes two (2) unemancipated
children shall have average family adjusted gross income over the
previous two (2) years not exceeding fifty-five thousand dollars
($55,000) per year at the time of application to the program;
(c) An applicant whose family includes three (3) or more
unemancipated children shall have average family adjusted gross
income over the previous two (2) years not exceeding sixty
thousand dollars ($60,000) per year at the time of application to the
program, plus for families with more than three (3) unemancipated
children an additional five thousand
dollars ($5,000) per year for each additional child; and
(d) Any applicant whose family includes more than one (1)
unemancipated child enrolled full time at an approved institution of
higher education shall be entitled to an additional ten thousand
dollars ($10,000) of adjusted gross income for each additional
unemancipated child enrolled full time at an approved institution of
higher education when the Department of Higher Education
calculates financial need.
(iv) In calculating financial need for applicants who graduate from
an Arkansas high school after December 31, 2006, a Free
Application for Federal Student Aid or a subsequent application
required by the United States Department of Education for federal
financial aid shall be filed by the applicant or other proof of family
income as defined by the Department of Higher Education. The
following criteria shall be used:
(a) An applicant whose family includes one (1) unemancipated
child shall have an average family adjusted gross income over the
previous two (2) years not exceeding sixty-five thousand dollars
($65,000) per year at the time of application to the program;
(b) An applicant whose family includes two (2) unemancipated
children shall have an average family adjusted gross income over
the previous two (2) years not exceeding seventy thousand dollars
($70,000) per year at the time of application to the program;
(c) An applicant whose family includes three (3) or more
unemancipated children shall have an average family adjusted gross
income over the previous two (2) years not exceeding seventy-five
thousand dollars ($75,000) per year at the time of application to the
program, plus for families with more than three (3) unemancipated
children, an additional five thousand dollars ($5,000) per

year for
each additional child; and
(d) Any applicant whose family includes more than one (1)
unemancipated child enrolled full time at an approved institution of
higher education shall be entitled to an additional ten thousand
dollars ($10,000) of adjusted gross income for each additional
unemancipated child enrolled full time at an approved institution of
higher education when the Department of Higher Education
calculates financial need.
(c)(1) The Arkansas Higher Education Coordinating Board shall
have the authority to increase these financial need family income
limitations if sufficient additional funds become available.
(2) Financial need criteria necessary for the selection of recipients,
including those defined as emancipated or independent by federal
student aid regulations, shall be established through rules and
regulations issued by the department.
(d) Recipients of Arkansas Governor’s Distinguished Scholarships
are prohibited from receiving Arkansas Academic Challenge
Scholarships.
(e) As an additional component to the Arkansas Academic
Challenge Scholarship:
(1) Each applicant for the scholarship shall agree that for each
year the scholarship is awarded he or she may volunteer to serve as
a literacy tutor for a minimum of twenty (20) clock hours each
semester in a public school or a faith-based educational institution
serving students in prekindergarten through grade six (PreK-6);
(2) A recipient who agrees to volunteer as a literacy tutor:
(A) Shall complete the prerequisite training in literacy and college
readiness skills provided under § 6-82-1006(d) before he or she
begins tutoring; and
( May receive college credit for the tutoring as determined by the
institution of higher education awarding the scholarship; and
(3) An enrolled college student who participates in the tutorial
program and fails to meet the Arkansas Academic Challenge
Scholarship academic eligibility requirement for the fall or spring
semester shall be given the probationary opportunity during the
subsequent spring or summer term to continue his or her education
and improve academic performance prior to losing scholarship
funding in the subsequent semester.
History. Acts 1991, No. 352, § 4; 1991, No. 362, § 4; 1991, No.
733, §§ 1, 2; 1992 (1st Ex. Sess.), No. 47, §§ 2, 3; 1993, No. 1170, §
3; 1993, No. 1244, §§ 1, 2; 1995, No. 1296, § 38; 1997, No. 977, §
5; 1999, No. 858, §§ 4-9; 2001, No. 1836, § 3; 2005, No. 2011, §§
2, 3; 2005, No. 2197, § 3; 2005, No. 2214, §§ 2, 3; 2007, No. 341, §
2; No. 840, § 1.

Federal Government, Political Parties-the 2 headed snake, Representative Boozman

Dissent in America to be labeled “HOMEGROWN TERRORISM”–

504 Comments

http://www.newswithviews.com/Yates/steven33.htm 


DISSENT
IN AMERICA TO BE RELABELED ‘HOMEGROWN TERRORISM’
PART 1 of 2

 

 

 

By Steven Yates
December 2, 2007
NewsWithViews.com

On October 23,
2007, the House of Representatives passed what may be the most dangerous bill
ever to come down the pike. This bill, like many of its predecessors on our
steady march toward totalitarianism, sailed under the radar. There was
virtually no publicity or fanfare. Now, the bill has gone to the Senate, and is
in committee.

The bill is
called the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of
2007 (H.R. 1955/S. 1959). The language in this bill is so maddeningly vague it
could mean anything. It could therefore be tailored to attack any group
opposing national and international policies that have the backing of the
corporatist-governmental power system.

Consider the
definition offered of ‘violent radicalization’ (from Sec. 899A of the bill
being referred to the Senate): “the process of adopting or promoting an
extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based
violence to advance political, religious, or social change.”

This definition
alone ought to raise your hackles! What counts as an ‘extremist belief system’?
What constitutes ‘violence’? Either one is anyone’s guess, because nowhere in
the bill is the word ‘extremist’ defined, nor is ‘violence’ defined. In
practice, they will mean whatever federal bureaucrats or others calling the
shots want them to mean. What about ‘facilitating’? This is a favorite
word in today’s mushy political-correctese. Does it mean ‘causing’? Or merely
‘encouraging’? How much ‘encouragement’?

Consider the
definition offered for ‘homegrown terrorism’: “the use, planned use, or
threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or
based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the
United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the
civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in
furtherance of political or social objectives.”

No examples of
‘homegrown terrorism’ are offered.

One could
understand a federal proscription against ‘the use … of force or violence…’
assuming we know what these amount to. But ‘planned’ use? What does this mean?
‘Planning’ involves thought, not action. In such ways this bill kicks open the
door to the officially sanctioned creation of thought crimes that can be smuggled
in under ‘homegrown terrorism’ and treated accordingly. Some critics have
therefore dubbed H.R. 1955/S. 1959 as the Thought Crimes Act of 2007. They have
spoken of the potential criminalization of dissent in America.

There is plenty
more in this insidious bill that ought to scare the living daylights out of
anyone defending basic freedoms recognized by our Constitution. Sec. 899B of
the bill is entitled ‘Findings’ and consists of nine numbered paragraphs—all of
them legislative land mines. There is no need to look at them all. Consider
(3): “The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization,
ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United
States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related
propaganda to United States citizens.”

Again, the bill
offers no definition or examples of ‘terrorist-related propaganda’ available
over the Internet. The phrase could therefore again mean anything those in
power want it to mean.

Or consider (6):
“The potential rise of self radicalized, unaffiliated terrorists domestically
cannot be easily prevented through traditional Federal intelligence or law
enforcement efforts, and requires the incorporation of State and local
solutions.”

Read between the
lines. H.R. 1955/S. 1959 would accelerate the federalization and militarization
of state and local police departments. If this bill becomes law, expect more
Taser attacks on ordinary people who haven’t been charged with any crime, but
refuse absolute obedience to cops acting like common bullies. Those paying
attention know that there has been an epidemic of such attacks this year, the
most recent being on a driver in Utah who declined to sign a traffic ticket and
wanted proof that he had been speeding (innocent until proven guilty,
correct?). If this bill becomes law, police militancy will increase, but with
incidents sufficiently widely dispersed that few residents will detect the
pattern, organize, and demand a stop to it.

Sec. 899C of the
H.R. 1955/S. 1959 would establish a National Commission on the Prevention of
Violent Radicalization and Ideologically Based Violence within the legislative
branch. The Commission will consist of ten members appointed by federal
officials including the president and the Secretary of Homeland Security. The
bill commands the Commission in mind-numbingly repetitious language: “Examine
and report upon the facts and causes of violent radicalization, homegrown
terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States, including
United States connections to non-United States persons and networks, violent
radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in
prison, individual or ‘lone wolf’ violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism,
and ideologically based violence, and other faces of the phenomena of violent
radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence that the
Commission considers important.”

The Commission
would convene and conduct “studies” for 18 months. Very possibly it will rely
on such biased sources as the Marxist Southern Poverty Law Center’s
Intelligence Project, which bills itself as the gold standard for monitoring
“hate groups” and “extremist” activity on U.S. soil. During this period,
grassroots political groups could find themselves compelled for their own
protection to do the equivalent of background checks on new members and
recruits. Some would doubtless be spies sent by the SPLC or the federal
government itself. They would also have to watch what they send out via email,
or place on their websites. Big Brother would be watching—especially anything
sent to or received from persons based overseas.

Sec. 899D
creates a Center of Excellence for the Study of Violent Radicalization and
Homegrown Terrorism in the United States. This Center would be
“university-based,” suggesting intent to pull academia into subservience. The
lure, of course, will be Homeland Security dollars. The result will be more
infiltration and more academic thought control, this time in the guise of the
“war on terror.”

The Findings
section ends: “Certain governments, including the United Kingdom, Canada, and
Australia have significant experience with homegrown terrorism and the United
States can benefit from lessons learned by those nations.”

Articles—on the
Internet, of course—have been appearing regularly on how the U.K is becoming a
total surveillance state, with cameras watching the movements of civilians
everywhere. Is our government to emulate the U.K.? All three societies are
slightly further down the road to police-state conditions than we are. Is that
why they are suggested as good models for those who would carry out the
mandates of H.R. 1955/S. 1959?

Sec. 899E
elaborates: “International Effort—The Secretary shall, in cooperation with the
Department of State, the Attorney General, and other Federal Government
entities, as appropriate, conduct a survey of methodologies implemented by
foreign nations to prevent violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism in
their respective nations.” In other words, our federal government is to study
foreign police states in order to build a better police state on U.S. soil.
Only, however, “[t]o the extent that methodologies are permissible under the
Constitution …”

If anyone at the
federal level except perhaps Ron Paul had read the bill, they would realize
that by its very nature it is unconstitutional. Nothing in the Constitution
authorizes our federal government to model policies on those of governments
elsewhere in the world—or to conduct the kind of domestic infiltrations and
surveillance this bill would require.

Sec. 899F, in
light of all the above, is almost comical. Are you ready? Here it comes: “The
Department of Homeland Security’s efforts to prevent ideologically based
violence and homegrown terrorism as described herein shall not violate the
constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States
citizens or lawful permanent residents.”

George Orwell
couldn’t have said it better!

Here is the
million dollar question: what prompted this bill? The only event in
recent years that can be labeled ‘homegrown terrorism’—given the federal
government’s pronouncements as our only criterion—was the destruction of the
Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. The federal government executed Timothy
McVeigh for that on July 14, 2001. Even in that case there are unanswered
questions. But while Internet-based claims persist that McVeigh had accomplices
other than Terry Nichols, none are officially recognized. Other attacks on U.S.
soil (World Trade Center 1993 and, of course, the 9/11 attacks) are blamed on
foreigners.

So again: what
prompted this bill?

There is only
one plausible answer. H.R. 1955/S. 1959’s unnamed target is the independent
Patriot movement.

By the ‘Patriot
movement’ I mean red-blooded Americans who proudly defend gun rights, and will
tell you why: an armed populace is a free populace. They have turned off their
televisions and tuned out corporate-controlled media. They have removed their
children from government schools. Many are men and women of modest means at
best—some are living from paycheck to paycheck—and are sick and tired of
bromides on behalf of NAFTA/CAFTA/FTAA, “free trade” and “globalization,” when
they have seen none of the supposed benefits. They are aware that today savings
are nonexistent, while bankruptcies and foreclosures are at all-time highs.

They know,
moreover, that the federal government and its controlled media lie brazenly
with a cooked inflation figure, a “core inflation” rate that excludes food and
energy costs. For part two click below.

PART 2 of 2

 

 

 

By Steven Yates
December 2, 2007
NewsWithViews.com

And they can
cite the claim of Alan Blinder, former deputy chairman of the Federal Reserve,
that things are going to get worse for the domestic economy—much worse!. In his
view, offered last May, the U.S. could lose between 30 million and 40 million
more jobs to offshoring over the next generation as global corporations pursue
the cheapest labor they can find. For Americans, entire occupations will be
wiped out and replaced with nothing. America will become a third-world country,
as U.S. workers—including many well-educated professionals—go pinwheeling over
the economic cliff. Disruptions now go hand-in-hand with World Trade
Organization meetings. With the growing popularity of commentators like Lou
Dobbs, we could see organized resistance to “free trade” and “globalization”
here at home in the future. Patriots have views of their own on the true state
of the U.S. economy that do not reflect official propaganda about ‘low
inflation’ and ‘low unemployment.’ They are taking the long view. They have
been investing in precious metals, including the Liberty Dollar—recently
targeted for a federal government raid.

Patriots might
also ask pesky questions like, How can the Bush Administration claim to be
fighting a “war on terror” with our borders wide open and still allowing
thousands of illegal aliens into this country every day. (Newsflash: not all
illegal aliens are Mexican.) They have some pretty good ideas why those in
power refuse to secure our borders. They are aware of the stealth effort to
fold this country into a North American Union with a new fiat currency, the
amero, intended to replace our debauched dollar. The integration of Mexicans
with a squatter’s mindset into the economies of our cities and towns will
further drive the third-worldization of America as it drives down American
wages.

Many Patriots
believe we should stop fighting foreign wars where only corporate interests
(and Israeli interests, not American interests) are at stake. No one, after
all, ever showed that Saddam Hussein was a threat to us. Nor has Iran’s Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad threatened us (he has threatened Israel).

Among Patriots
are those who question the legality and Constitutionality of the federal income
tax collected annually by the IRS. They are aware of the shady history of the
Federal Reserve Corporation. Many can name names to go along with the otherwise
vague ‘power elite’ label: Rothschild, Rockefeller, Warburg, Morgan, Schiff,
Aldrich, Harriman, Brzezinski, Kissinger, and so on. Some Patriots would like
to see an independent investigation into what really happened on 9/11.

In short, the
independent Patriot movement completely rejects the direction this country has
been going in since the Reagan-Bush era during which globalism took a quantum
leap culminating in NAFTA, and has been accelerating ever since.

Reading H.R.
1955/S. 1959, Patriots will have still more unwanted questions. Is rejecting
the official consensus on the health and direction of the U.S. economy the same
as ‘terrorist-related propaganda’? Is a person who documents points of view
online that dissent from the Bush Administration’s stay-the-course policy on
the Iraq War a potential ‘homegrown terrorist’? Are the groups associated with
the many websites offering alternatives to corporate media about to be labeled
such, as a precursor to controls over our online activities and demands for
unquestioned support for federal (and globalist) policy? These may sound like
rhetorical questions, but the wording of H.R. 1955/S. 1959 is so open-ended we
have no alternative.

Patriots are
aware, finally, that all except for two or possibly three of next year’s
contenders for the presidency are members of, or are controlled by, the
CFR/Trilateralist/Bilderburg axis, and fear another pseudo-choice between
Globalist Candidate A and Globalist Candidate B.

The Patriot
movement clearly threatens the lust for power that captured Rome on the Potomac
after 9/11, and it threatens the greed of global corporate predators who place
profits ahead not just of the livelihoods of ordinary Americans but of U.S.
sovereignty itself. Moreover, while much of the country of course remains in
its television-induced stupor, the Patriot movement is growing. Within it are
articulate voices who recognize that behind both is the power elite’s drive for
a world government, for which global “free trade” and “capitalism” are Trojan
horses.

Patriots,
moreover, are not powerless. They may look powerless as they meet and plan in
the back room of the local Denny’s. But they definitely did a number on the
badly wanted (by the power elite) amnesty-for-illegal-aliens effort—grassroots
efforts stopped amnesty-for-illegals four times this year, as irate callers
shut down Congressional switchboards and floods of emails crashed servers! Patriots
are not a bunch of peons who can simply be told by government officials to keep
their mouths shut! In the event of, e.g., a strike on Iran—especially in
the wake of the ongoing catastrophe in Iraq—these people are bound to be
trouble, as are many other groups who oppose foreign wars for different
reasons. They will be trouble if Cintra, a foreign corporation, persists in
building a NAFTA Superhighway. Organized resistance has already emerged in
Texas and Oklahoma against the NAFTA Superhighway system, which would take
hundreds of thousands of acres of land through post-Kelo eminent domain.
Cintra’s contract is supposed to run for 50 years!

The feds can’t
just “go after” Patriots and antiwar groups, though—not without giving away
their hand. Hence evil bills like this one to relabel their activities as
‘homegrown terrorism,’ serving as potential domestic preemptive strikes against
possible civil unrest.

Obviously, H.R.
1955/S. 1959 will do nothing to protect Americans against real terrorism. What
it should do is raise the question of who protects Americans from their own
government? The bottom line is that if this bill is rushed through the Senate
and signed by President Bush, it raises the specter of anyone dissenting from
official national and international policy being labeled a ‘homegrown
terrorist.’ Coupled with earlier abominations like the Military Commissions
Act, the John Warner Defense Authorization Act, and Presidential Directive NSPD
51/HSPD-20” signed by Bush on May 9 of this year—all of which will be inherited
by Bush’s successor—Patriots can see that our present direction is toward
totalitarian rule by brute force, with dissent and alternative voices and
products being ruthlessly suppressed. Just two weeks ago we saw the
above-mentioned raid on Liberty Dollar headquarters. Even as it destroys the
value of our fiat currency, the Federal Reserve Corporation doesn’t want the
competition. H.R. 1955/S. 1959 could lead to the coerced shutting down of
alternative news sites on the Internet, the end of alternative newspapers and
talk radio shows, culminating in federal raids on the residences of known
patriots (in the case of Patriots who question the legality and
Constitutionality of the federal income tax this has already happened).

Finally—H.R.
1955/S. 1959’s Sec. 899C stipulates, “the Commission may, to such extent and in
such amounts as are provided in appropriation Acts, enter into contracts to
enable the Commission to discharge its duties under this section.”

In other words,
the Commission may hire private contractors to identify and isolate ‘homegrown
terrorists.’ Blackwater, the increasingly notorious private army, comes to
mind. Should we see a power elite caused economic crisis with tens of thousands
of suddenly unemployed people taking to the streets protesting globalist
policy, will federal officials contract with Blackwater to engage in a little
“crowd control”?

Four hundred and
four members of our House of Representatives voted for this abomination (219
Democrats and 185 Republicans). Six votes were cast against it (split three and
three). This overwhelming bipartisan support speaks volumes about where the
present Congress stands—and about the absence of any substantive difference
between the two divisions of the Rome on the Potomac Party.

H.R. 1955/S.
1959 is now in the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs. We need to fax or call our Senators and tell them in no uncertain
terms that We The People oppose this bill (use the U.S. Capitol Switchboard
toll-free numbers 1-877-851-6437, 1-800-833-6354, 1-888-355-3588,
1-866-220-0044, 1-866-808-0065, 1-877-762-8762, 1-866-340-9281,
1-800-862-5530). We need to demand a NO vote to one of the most frightening and
dangerous pieces of legislation I think I’ve ever seen! The edifice of a
totalitarian America is under construction in increments under our noses! H.R.
1955/S. 1959 is just the latest installment. We now have very little time to
get up off our duffs and do something to stop this! For part one click below.

 

 

Cultural Marxism destroying United States, Real war on terror our borders

Diversity Destroys by Buchanan

166 Comments

 

 

 

Folks,

It was white European talent that
helped build this nation.  Engineering, art, music, literature, science,
farming, factory workers, boat builders, Classic Roman and Greek history,
religion, etc.  All from Europe.  The people of Europe are
builders.  And many contributed to mankind without a classical education.

 

Helen

 

This is a
WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59020

Tuesday, December 4, 2007

Can diversity destroy us?

Posted: December 4, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Patrick J. Buchanan

© 2007 

On the Great Seal of the United States, first
suggested by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, there was to be
emblazoned a new motto: “E Pluribus Unum” – “Out of many,
one.”

It was in their unity, not their diversity, that the strength of the
colonies resided. So Patrick Henry believed, as he declared, “The distinctions
between Virginians, Pennsylvanians, New Yorkers and New Englanders are no
more. I am not a Virginian, but an American.”

National identity must supersede state identity for America to survive.

Yet it has lately become fashionable to say that America is great not
because she is united, but because she is diverse. It is because America is a
multicultural, multiracial, multiethnic, multilingual nation that she is a
great nation. A corollary is that the more diverse America becomes, the
better and greater she becomes.

After the Los Angeles riot of 1992, Vice President Dan Quayle was asked by
his Japanese hosts if perhaps America did not suffer from too much diversity.
“I begged to differ with my hosts,” Quayle retorted. “I
explained that our diversity is our strength.”

And so our rulers, marinated in the myths that we “are a nation of
immigrants” and “our diversity is our strength,” continue to
embrace mass immigration – the more the better. But are the myths true?

(Column continues below)

America was settled by colonists from the British Isles. In 1789, two
centuries after Jamestown and Plymouth Rock, we were 99 percent Protestant.
Until the Irish came in 1845, there was almost no immigration. Even during
the Great Wave of 1890-1920, the number of immigrants was a fraction of the
38 million here today. And all had come from Europe. By 1960, we were almost
90 percent European and more than 90 percent Christian – of one nationality,
American, one language, English, and one culture.

That America is gone forever.

Last week, we learned that in the last seven years 10.3 million people,
almost all from the Third World, entered the United States, more than half
illegally. The nation that was one-tenth minority in 1960 is now one-third
minority. European-Americans will soon be a minority in the nation, as they
are today in California, Texas and most large American cities.

And when that day comes, what then will unite us as a people?

Certainly not religious faith, for the last 40 years have seen a large
influx of Muslims, the rise of a rabid secularism and the break-up of
Christian churches – the Episcopalians most recently – over issues of
morality: abortion, civil unions, homosexual bishops, assisted suicide, stem
cell research, Darwin, creationism. No longer are we united by a common
language, as the fastest growing radio and TV stations are Hispanic. And
certainly not culture, as we are in a cultural war over history, heroes and
holidays.

And how can we say diversity is a strength, when the most diverse nations
of Europe, Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, shattered into 22 nations as soon
as they became free, and Slovaks and Czechs divorced? Ethnic and linguistic
diversity is now pulling Belgium apart, as they tore Cyprus in two.

Since World War II, diversity – racial, religious, ethnic, cultural – has
pulled Malaysia, the Indian subcontinent, Pakistan, Indonesia and Ethiopia
apart, and is today pulling Iraq, Turkey and Lebanon apart. How, when
tribalism is everywhere ascendant, is diversity a strength?

When Islam arose in the 7th century, our world became more diverse.
Fourteen centuries of war followed. When Catholic Europe became more diverse
with the Protestant Reformation, a century of war followed, ending in a
Thirty Years War that carried away a third of all the German people.

There came a new diversity when the English came to the Red Man’s
continent in 1607 and Africans were brought as slaves in 1619. From that
diversity came the near annihilation of American Indians and a racial divide
that led to the American Civil War, bloodiest in the West in the 19th
century.

Our racial diversity has ever been the most divisive issue in America –
and remains so, as we see daily from Jena, the Imus affair and the Duke rape
case.

Britain is more diverse than in the time of Victoria and Churchill. Is
Britain a better, stronger nation now that London is Londonistan, madrassas
defend the London bombers and race riots are common in the industrial north?
If diversity is a strength, why do Scots wish to follow the Irish and secede?

Has Germany been strengthened by the diversity the Turks brought? Is
France a stronger nation for the 5 million to 8 million Muslims concentrated
in the banlieus? How have the Japanese suffered from their lack of diversity?

The Melting Pot – language, law, culture – worked to make us one nation
and one people. But that Melting Pot, cracked and broken, is rejected by
multiculturalists as an instrument of cultural genocide, crafted by white
Europeans to annihilate native cultures.

This generation is witnessing the Deconstruction of America. Out of one,
many.

 

 

 

 

 

Huckabee shameful record, Presidential Candidates

Huckabee, choice of CFR & LULAC

189 Comments

“ What is more evil than a
liar, traitor pretending to be “a man of God”?”
Another George Bush.




 

Did you know that Huckabee is the hero of the anti-American
racist hate group LULAC who has repeatedly worked with the anti-Christian
ACLU to defeat pro-American & pro-Christian efforts?  What is
more evil than a liar, traitor pretending to be “a man of
God”?

                                                                    
Barb Coe – CCIR

 

 

——- Forwarded message follows ——-

From:                        “Christopher 
Golden” <cmarshg@earthlink.net>

To:                            <cmarshg@earthlink.net>

Subject:                     Why
Mike Huckabee is Surging

Date
sent:                  Thu,
29 Nov 2007 17:10:48 -0500

 

 

Dear Fellow Republicans, Conservatives,
Constitutionalists, and other Patriotic Americans:

 

Mike Huckabee has all the sudden become the “Great
Right Hope”. Because of his (supposed) opposition to abortion and
homosexuality, a fmr President of the Arkansas Bapitist Convention,
and a southern GOP governor, he is considered a conservative.

 

Question: When was the last time a
darkhorse, evangelical fmr governor from a small southern state became
president? Answer: Jimmy Carter. Question #2:  How did Carter, also a
darkhorse, get elected? Answer: The Establishment – particularly the Trilateral
Commission and its parent: the Council on Foreign Relations.

 

In September Gov. Huckabee spoke before the CFR. What is
significant about that speech is that it is posted on the CFR’s website – which
is a special privilege in its own right. After last night’s CNN Debate, Uber-
Establishmentarian David Gergen (CFR) was oozing praise on Huckabee.

 

Since September, Huckabee has surged. Not just in Iowa,
but nationally as well. This is no coincidence. The establishment knows that
Giuliani and McCain would split the GOP if they get the nomination (which would
induce a ‘populist’ major third party candidacy). Hence, they tried Romney (who
is an empty suit), and Fred Thompson (CFR) who flopped.

 

Who better to turn to than a “Christian coalition
Republican” to dupe conservatives into backing a CFR globalist. Make no
mistake, Huckabee is one (pro-illegal immigration, pro-interventionism,
pro-foreign aid, etc). Plus he is a tax-and-spend liberal. Below are
two columns by Chuck Baldwin that exposes Huckabee’s liberalism.

 

Christian conservatives were fooled by Carter. Don’t be
fooled again by this huckleberry Huckabee.

 

Chris

 

   

Huckabee shameful record, Presidential Candidates

Religious Rignt Crucifies what’s left of America/Huckabee

95 Comments

RELIGIOUS RIGHT CRUCIFIES WHAT’S LEFT
OF AMERICA


by Alan Stang
November 30, 2007
NewsWithViews.com

Suddenly,
we are told, the man from Hope is blitzing up the Iowa polls. No, not the
Arkansas slime ball and rapist, not Bill Clinton; the other man from Hope, Mike
Huckabee. Hope is a town that, man for man, probably produces more candidates
for President than any other. If all this new support for Huckabee is real,
where is it coming from? It is coming from the Religious Right. Huckabee after
all is a Baptist preacher.

Some
Ron Paul people lament the fact that the Religious Right does not support him.
After all, doesn’t Ron support what they do? Isn’t Dr. No the foremost
candidate for President in either party who advocates the restoration of
constitutional liberty, getting the government out of our lives and off our
backs? In foreign policy, doesn’t he alone advocate minding our own business,
bringing our troops home and staying out of the war? Why has the Religious
Right so obviously snubbed him almost without consideration?

What
not enough Pauliticians understand – and need to – is that the Religious Right
has vigorously rejected Dr. No not for some other reason, but precisely because
of these positions he espouses. The Religious Right rejects Ron Paul precisely
because he stands for Christian liberty and the Religious Right stands for
a perversion of Christianity I called Imperial
Religion in a previous piece.

Yes,
Dr. Paul is a staunch Christian himself. Yes, he opposes baby killing and never
has killed one, despite four thousand chances, the number of babies he has
delivered so far as a ladies’ physician. But Dr. No does not wear his religion
on his sleeve. He doesn’t boast about it. He puts it this way:

“I
have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political
arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I
find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that
Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I
do.”

But
this is exactly not what the Religious Right wants. It wants someone who is
constantly spouting off about it, making a show, appearing at the church
meeting hall with a Bible as big as the Internal Revenue Code under his arm,
like Clinton. It doesn’t want someone modest, like true Christian Ron Paul.

Indeed,
Dr. No continues: “I’d rather my views and my convictions and my faith be shown
by my actions rather than [by] what I say…. also, the part in the bible about
not showing off…we’re instructed to pray quietly …. [and] not to play big
fanfare. I’m trying to strike something in between there; where I’m not bashful
and ashamed of it, at the same time I don’t want to look like others who . . .
look to get votes because they were willing to say and do something in public.”

Please
read my piece entitled Imperial Religion again. It will dispel any
mystery about why the Religious Right has contemptuously rejected Dr. Paul. The
Religious Right is the product of a satanic perversion of Christianity, satanic
because it attempts to “improve” upon God. Satan’s rebellion is equally an
attempt to “improve” upon God.

God
has given us the Kingdom, but victims in the throes of this perversion believe
it isn’t good enough and they know better. Eaten up by pride, they want big
preachers, big buildings with their names in big letters, big money, big cars,
big planes and big hair. God says He does all – all – all the soul saving for
eternal life, but consumed by themselves they are competing with Him to see who
can save more.

A
preacher once told me he routinely “saved” (arranged eternal life for) 30,000
souls a month. What kind of government would such spiritual megalomania
produce? Certainly not a government of limited powers like the one the Founding
Fathers bequeathed us. On the contrary, a man who can arrange eternal life for
that many people would want a correspondingly big government, an all-powerful,
centralized government to use as a weapon to “improve” the Kingdom.

You
have probably noticed in this rendition a powerful similarity between the
Religious Right and “liberals” like the Clintons and other Far Left poseurs.
You are not mistaken. The similarity is there. The Religious Right and the Far
Left are the two sides of one coin. The Far Left too is trying to “improve.”
The “difference” is that they don’t call their target “the Kingdom” and they
don’t mention God. Other differences are superficial matters of personality and
style.

Could
that be a reason so many people find “Christianity” repulsive? They think it is
Christianity that rightly repels them, but it isn’t. It is a perverted
imitation, Imperial Religion’s overweening hauteur. Remember that from the
beginning government by men has been a curse, brought to us by ancestors of
today’s “liberals,” who were dissatisfied with government by God.

God
governed directly through his judges, but some “liberals” among the children
whined that they wanted a king. God warned them in detail what a king would do,
but they kept whining, while the rest of the children merely watched. So God,
ever gracious, gave them what they wanted.

Ever
since, government has done exactly as God warned. How could He know? How did
God get so smart? Here’s a clue: He created the universe, everything there is,
and didn’t need our help. Today, to justify themselves, the descendants of the
government-worshippers say Romans 13 means exactly the opposite of what it
says. They say it means obedience to government no matter what it does. Really?
Then why does God keep overthrowing, even killing, governments that disobey His
commandments? As I asked in another piece on Romans 13: Is God a Nazi?

That
is why it is so important to recognize what the Religious Right is, to see it
with new eyes. Both the Religious Right and the Far Left share the desire to
use government as a weapon to impose obedience and behavior. That is why the
Religious Right, like the Far Left, rejects Dr. Paul. Where the tires hit the
track, they are the same.

Compare
that to what Dr. Paul says: “We believe that at the root of most of our troubles
today is the misguided and discredited philosophy of an all-powerful
government, ceaselessly striving to subsidize, manipulate, and control
individuals. The essence of freedom is the right of law-abiding individuals to
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without undue governmental
intervention.”

Notice
any difference? Indeed, Dr. No, living up to his nickname, says he “supports
deregulation by the federal government of public education, and encourages the
elimination of the federal Department of Education.” Wow, outright elimination!
Wouldn’t that be somewhat “extreme?” Wouldn’t kiddos in the nation’s Communist
government schools wind up even more illiterate than they already are?

Whoa!
Hold on! Did I say Dr. No said all that? No, friends, that’s wrong, sorry, I
made a mistake. What you just read are excerpts from the July, 1980 Republican
Party Platform in Detroit. I was there. But when I mistakenly said Dr. No said
it you believed me. Why? Because he says the same thing! He is smack in the mainstream
of the so-called Reagan Republican Party. That’s the Party the Religious Right
is supposed to adore. The 1980 Convention was the one that nominated Reagan.

Now
let’s look at this year’s Religious Right candidate. Like Clinton, he comes
from Hope. Like Clinton, he plays a musical instrument. Bill, as you know,
plays the sexaphone (sic), Mike the guitar. Like Bill, Mike staunchly believes.
You say you don’t believe Bill believes? Ask him. Hey, could you lift the Bible
he carries to church? Sure, Mike is a preacher, Bill technically is not, but he
sure knows how to use what Teddy Roosevelt called the “bully pulpit.”

Finally,
Mike, like Bill, fervently believes in using the power of all-powerful
government to impose the will of God. Did you know that Mike Huckabee would use
the federal government to ban smoking? To me, that says it all. Does he know he
is running for President, not health commissioner, and as President would be
governed by the Constitution? Where in the Constitution does it even remotely give
the federal government power to ban smoking?

Remember
that preachers in colonial Virginia were paid in tobacco. Tobacco was money. In
a famous case, the preachers went to court and sued. In effect, they wanted
more tobacco. They lost because of the legal machinations of the silver-tongued
counsel who opposed them, a business failure who had been the town bum and
logically became a lawyer, a guy named Patrick Henry.

President
No would not even try to ban smoking. As President, he wouldn’t have the power
and would figure it was none of his business anyway. Remember also that the
only world leader who succeeded in banning smoking in his country was – the
envelope please – Adolf Hitler. Adolf was a staunch believer in big, paternal
government – government that does everything for you and to you – totalitarian
government. Isn’t that what dictatorship means?

Why
would a President Mike ban smoking? Because it’s bad for health. Recently, in
preparation for his presidential campaign, he lost 100 pounds by eating right.
As President, would he ban eating wrong because, that, too, is bad for health?
The question is legitimate. Some groups have demanded exactly that, including
punishment for people who are not acceptably svelte.

Because
he is a Christian, Dr. No staunchly opposes abortion. He also recognizes that
as President in our system of checks and balances he would lack the power to
ban it. The Constitution says not a word on the subject, maybe because it never
occurred to the Founders that anyone could be crazy enough to try to make it
legal. It is something for the states to decide, not a federal issue. That is
why we have states. But President Huckabee would not let the states make that
decision.

Under
Mike Huckabee, Arkansas saw a 37 percent increase in sales tax, a 16 percent
increase in gas tax and a monster 103 percent increase in cigarette taxes.
According to the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration, the state
suffered a net tax increase of $505 million under Huckabee. With Mike as governor,
state spending exploded more than 65% between 1996 and 2004, which just
happened to be more than three times the inflation rate. State debt rose by
almost one billion dollars and the number of government workers rose 20%.

So,
Mike would use gobs of your money to tweak and “improve” the Kingdom. He
believes the government should be a caring, strict parent. He endorses more
government money for health care and government housing. He is so hostile to
“conservatives” that as governor he kept many top Clinton agency heads. Mike
Huckabee reveres government.

American
Spectator
reports that Huckabee has also been investigated fourteen times and officially
reprimanded five times by the state Ethics Commission, a respected,
non-partisan body. MSNBC says there were many other scandals. Greg Pierce says
in the “conservative” Washington Times that Mike “used public money for
family restaurant meals, boat expenses, and other personal uses. He tried to
claim as his own some $70,000 of furniture donated to the governor’s mansion. .
. .” Which recalls the departing Clintons cleaning out the White House.

It
gets worse. With regard to the illegal alien invasion, Mike Huckabee makes el
presidente Jorge W. Boosh look like a foaming xenophobe. Mike wants amnesty
and free college scholarships for illegal aliens. He has actually compared
illegal aliens, who break into our country, to black slaves who were brought
here in chains. Mike denounced a bill that would have prevented illegal aliens
– foreigners here illegally – from voting or receiving state benefits.

Huckabee
explained that companies like Toyota would not invest in Arkansas if the state
didn’t allow non-citizens to vote, because it would “send the message that,
essentially, if you don’t look like us, talk like us and speak like us, we
don’t want you.” Wouldn’t the men who run the biggest, most successful auto
company in the world be smart enough to know that people in Little Rock
wouldn’t look, talk and speak like people in Tokyo?

And
don’t we at least have the right to expect a President of the United States,
even a governor of Arkansas, to have some concept of law? Notice that Mike
Huckabee doesn’t seem to have one. Does he know that illegal aliens are
illegal? But guess what? Now that he’s running for President, Mike at least
temporarily is in favor of securing our borders. Indeed, Mike even has a plan.
In a recent radio ad, he explained, “My plan to secure the border? Two words:
Chuck Norris.”

I
should warn you that no one on this planet is a bigger Chuck Norris fan than I
am. I am always there, covering his back, when he terminates a man with extreme
prejudice, or rescues a POW or power kicks an Islamic terrorist. Chuck is
probably a perfect example of a true Christian beguiled into supporting
Huckabee because the Religious Right says Mike is one too. Chuck, she is the
whore of Babylon. Come out of her and be ye separate.

You
may wonder why the Religious Right would support Mike in spite of all this. If
you do, you miss the point. They support him because of it. They could
wind up inserting him as running mate on a Giuliani or Romney ticket. They
would argue that, unlike Mitt, Mike has never promoted sodomy, and unlike Rudy,
it is Mrs. Huckabee alone who wears the ladies’ lingerie in the family.
Remember that Rudy favors wall-to-wall abortion.

By
the way, don’t get the idea that I have something against Arkansas. I love
Arkansas. First, I love Arkansas because its team is called the “hogs.” During
a game, I love to yell, “Let’s hear it for the hogs!” Second, when a dear
friend of mine who knows about such things wants to convey that a man is really
well known, not just a minor celebrity, but really world famous, he says, “Why,
this man is known throughout the United States and parts of Arkansas.”

Finally,
it was in Arkansas that I met the Love Priestess. I was speaking at a youth
camp, when suddenly I became aware of a finger thrusting at my nose and a voice
yelling, “Who do you think you are?” I wasn’t very bright in those days, but I
was smart enough to recognize immediately that this was wife material. But that
is another story for another day. So, I love Arkansas.

Today,
the most important thing I hope to leave with you is that the Religious Right
is not at all what it pretends, that it is a spiritual perversion, that it is
in fact a malevolent, totalitarian force, that it has betrayed America and
Christianity for many years, and that in its choice of Mike Huckabee it is
getting ready to do so again.

Paul
speaks of “false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out
our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into
bondage.” (Gal. 2:4) Therefore: “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith
Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.”
(Gal. 5:1)

Chuck,
come out!

©
2007 – Alan Stang – All Rights Reserved

Alan
Stang was one of Mike Wallace’s original writers at Channel 13 in New York,
where he wrote some of the scripts that sent Mike to CBS. Stang has been a
radio talk show host himself. In Los Angeles, he went head to head nightly with
Larry King, and, according to Arbitron, had almost twice as many listeners. He
has been a foreign correspondent. He has written hundreds of feature magazine
articles in national magazines and some fifteen books, for which he has won
many awards, including a citation from the Pennsylvania House of
Representatives for journalistic excellence. One of Stang’s exposés stopped a
criminal attempt to seize control of New Mexico, where a gang seized a court
house, held a judge hostage and killed a deputy. The scheme was close to
success before Stang intervened. Another Stang exposé inspired major reforms in
federal labor legislation.

His
first book, It’s Very Simple: The True Story of Civil Rights, was an instant
best-seller. His first novel, The Highest Virtue, set in the Russian
Revolution, won smashing reviews and five stars, top rating, from the West
Coast Review of Books, which gave five stars in only one per cent of its
reviews.

Stang
has lectured in every American state and around the world and has guested on
many top shows, including CNN’s Cross Fire. Because he and his wife had the
most kids in Santo Domingo, the Dominican Republic, where they lived at the
time, the entire family was chosen to be actors in “Havana,” directed by Sydney
Pollack and starring Robert Redford, the most expensive movie ever made (at the
time). Alan Stang is the man in the ridiculous Harry Truman shirt with the pasted-down
hair. He says they made him do it.

 

Huckabee shameful record, Presidential Candidates

Christians need to beware of Mike Huckabee

148 Comments

Did you know
that Huckabee is the hero of the anti-American racist hate group LULAC
who has repeatedly worked with the anti-Christian ACLU to defeat
pro-American & pro-Christian efforts?  What is more evil than a
liar, traitor pretending to be “a man of God”?

                                                                    
Barb Coe – CCIR

 

 

——-
Forwarded message follows ——-

From:                        “Christopher 
Golden” <cmarshg@earthlink.net>

To:                            <cmarshg@earthlink.net>

Subject:                     Why
Mike Huckabee is Surging

Date
sent:                  Thu,
29 Nov 2007 17:10:48 -0500

 

 

Dear Fellow
Republicans, Conservatives, Constitutionalists, and other Patriotic Americans:

 

Mike Huckabee
has all the sudden become the “Great Right Hope”. Because of his
(supposed) opposition to abortion and homosexuality, a fmr President
of the Arkansas Bapitist Convention, and a southern GOP governor, he is
considered a conservative.

 

Question: When
was the last time a darkhorse, evangelical fmr governor from a small
southern state became president? Answer: Jimmy Carter. Question
#2:  How did Carter, also a darkhorse, get elected? Answer: The
Establishment – particularly the Trilateral Commission and its parent: the
Council on Foreign Relations.

 

In September
Gov. Huckabee spoke before the CFR. What is significant about that speech is
that it is posted on the CFR’s website – which is a special privilege in its
own right. After last night’s CNN Debate, Uber- Establishmentarian David Gergen
(CFR) was oozing praise on Huckabee.

 

Since
September, Huckabee has surged. Not just in Iowa, but nationally as well. This
is no coincidence. The establishment knows that Giuliani and McCain would split
the GOP if they get the nomination (which would induce a ‘populist’ major third
party candidacy). Hence, they tried Romney (who is an empty suit), and Fred Thompson
(CFR) who flopped.

 

Who better to
turn to than a “Christian coalition Republican” to dupe conservatives
into backing a CFR globalist. Make no mistake, Huckabee is one (pro-illegal
immigration, pro-interventionism, pro-foreign aid, etc). Plus he is a
tax-and-spend liberal. Below are two columns by Chuck Baldwin that
exposes Huckabee’s liberalism.

 

Christian
conservatives were fooled by Carter. Don’t be fooled again by this huckleberry
Huckabee.

 

Chris

 

   

Christians Need To
Beware Of Mike Huckabee
by Chuck Baldwin
November 2, 2007


With Christian conservatives trying to scramble to find a
Republican presidential candidate they can support, some of them seem to be
coalescing around former Arkansas governor, Mike Huckabee. Janet Folger, especially,
seems to be trumpeting his candidacy. But is Mike Huckabee someone Christian
conservatives should be supporting? Not everyone thinks so.

Randy Minton, chairman of the Arkansas chapter of Phyllis
Schlafly’s national Eagle Forum, said, “We called him a pro-life, pro-gun
liberal, when I was in the state legislature and he was governor.” Phyllis
Schlafly herself was even more direct.

President and Founder of Eagle Forum, Phyllis Schlafly,
said this about Governor Huckabee: “He destroyed the conservative movement
in Arkansas, and left the Republican Party a shambles.” She went on to
say, “Yet some of the same evangelicals who sold us on George W. Bush as a
‘compassionate conservative’ are now trying to sell us on Mike Huckabee.”

Even one of Huckabee’s strongest supporters within the
Religious Right, Pastor Rick Scarborough, head of Vision America, admitted, “Mike
has always sought the validation of elites.” Of course, my
question for Rick Scarborough is, With an indictment such as that, how can you
continue to support Mike Huckabee?

According to an opinion piece written by John Fund in the
Wall Street Journal, “Paul Pressler, a former Texas judge who led the
conservative Southern Baptist revolt, told me, ‘I know of no conservative he
[Huckabee] appointed while he headed the Arkansas Baptist Convention.'”

Fund went on to say that “Mr. Huckabee’s reluctance
to surround himself with conservatives was evident as governor, when he kept
many agency heads appointed by Bill Clinton.”

Fund also said this about Huckabee: “‘He’s just like
Bill Clinton in that he practices management by news cycle,’ a former top
Huckabee aide told me. ‘As with Clinton there was no long-term planning, just
putting out fires on a daily basis. One thing I’ll guarantee is that won’t lead
to competent conservative governance.'”

Mike Huckabee is also terrible on immigration. According
to Jim Boulet, Jr., executive director of English First, “Rudy Giuliani
spent years defending the right of New York City to remain a sanctuary for
illegal aliens. Yet Giuliani was a veritable Lou Dobbs Jr. on illegal
immigration in comparison to Mike Huckabee.”

Regarding Huckabee’s stance on immigration, Mr. Minton
said, “Until of late, he has been an open-borders guy on
immigration–amnesty, the whole works. As governor, he wanted to give free
college scholarships to all illegals.”

Minton’s assertion is backed up by Daniel Larison at The
American Conservative. He said, “Like his fellow presidential candidate
[who recently dropped out of the race], Sen. Sam Brownback, Huckabee regards it
as his Christian duty to help subvert and liberalize U.S. immigration laws.
Together, they embrace the notion that fidelity to the Gospel requires
privileging the interests of non-citizens over those of fellow citizens.”

Ann Coulter agrees: “On illegal immigration,
Huckabee makes George Bush sound like Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO). Huckabee has
compared illegal aliens to slaves brought here in chains from Africa, saying,
‘I think, frankly, the Lord is giving us a second chance to do better than we
did before.’

“Toward that end, when an Arkansas legislator
introduced a bill that would prevent illegal aliens from voting and receiving
state benefits, Huckabee denounced the bill, saying it would rile up ‘those who
are racist and bigots.’

“He also made the insane point that companies such
as Toyota would not invest in Arkansas if the state didn’t allow non-citizens
to vote, because it would ‘send the message that, essentially, “If you
don’t look like us, talk like us and speak like us, we don’t want you.”‘

“Like all the (other) Democratic candidates for
President, he supports a federal law to ban smoking–unless you’re an illegal
alien smoking at a Toyota plant.”

A former state lawmaker, Minton also said, that Huckabee
was not a “fiscally conservative Republican.” Rather, Huckabee was
regarded as just another liberal “tax and spender” in fiscal matters.
This is in direct opposition to Huckabee’s boast of “90 tax cuts during
his tenure.” And the facts seem to validate Minton, not Huckabee.

An Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration
report showed a “net tax increase of $505 million, a figure adjusted for
inflation and economic growth” on Huckabee’s watch.

That Huckabee is a liberal “tax and spender” is
also affirmed by Tom Roeser. According to Roeser, “[Huckabee] hiked state
spending 65.3%, from 1996 to 2004. He supported five tax increases, leading the
‘Club for Growth’ to call him a liberal in disguise . . .”

Roeser also points out that “The Cato Institute, a
libertarian think tank with heavy ties to the national GOP, gives him an F
grade for spending and taxes in 2006 and an overall grade of D in his
governorship. During his tenure, the number of state employees increased over
20% and Arkansas’ general obligation debt rose by almost $1 billion.”

Furthermore, according to the Washington Times,
“Until recently, he [Huckabee] had refused to sign the famous no-tax
pledge offered to candidates by Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax
Reform.”

In spite of Huckabee’s proven big-government,
big-spending, and pro- amnesty record, however, some Christian conservatives
are falling for his conservative rhetoric. It seems that all a Republican
candidate has to do is start talking “pro-life” and
“pro-marriage” and he or she will gain the support of certain
Christian conservatives.

First it was Bob Jones, III endorsing the liberal former
governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, and now it is Janet Folger endorsing
the liberal former governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee. Why any Christian
leader would want to support a man with such a dubious record truly escapes me.

Christians need to beware of Mike Huckabee. He is not a
conservative. Even worse, he is not a constitutionalist. He is an opportunist,
however. This is demonstrated by the fact that many of his supporters are
openly posturing (with Huckabee’s consent, obviously) for an opportunity to run
Huckabee as a potential Vice Presidential candidate with either Giuliani or
Romney at the top of the ticket.

Let me ask the reader something. How could a principled
pro-life, pro- Second Amendment, pro-Constitution conservative be willing to
run on a ticket with a liberal presidential candidate such as Rudy Giuliani or
Mitt Romney? That’s right, he couldn’t.

I say again, beware of Mike Huckabee!

More Reasons To Beware Of Mike Huckabee
by Chuck Baldwin
November 27, 2007

Many Christian conservatives see Mike Huckabee as the
best candidate to deliver the GOP from an impending pro-abortion presidential
nomination of either Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney. Huckabee is doing especially
well in Iowa, particularly among evangelicals. Is Mike Huckabee worthy of this
support, however? The facts say no.

I have already attempted to warn my evangelical brethren
as to the dangers of supporting Mike Huckabee. See http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20071102.html
  However, that first column was just the tip of the
proverbial iceberg. Here are more reasons to beware of Mike Huckabee.

Robert Novak recently wrote a column about Mike Huckabee
entitled, “The False Conservative.” In the column he said,
“Huckabee is campaigning as a conservative, but serious Republicans know
that he is a high-tax, protectionist, big-government advocate of a strong hand
in the Oval Office directing the lives of Americans.”

Novak also said, “There is no doubt about Huckabee’s
record during a decade in Little Rock as governor. . . He increased the
Arkansas tax burden by 47 percent, boosting the levies on gasoline and
cigarettes.”

Novak continued saying, “Quin Hillyer, a former
Arkansas journalist writing in the conservative American Spectator, called
Huckabee ‘a guy with a thin skin, a nasty vindictive streak.’ Huckabee’s retort
was to attack Hillyer’s journalistic procedures, fitting a mean-spirited image
when he responds to conservative criticism.”

Calling Huckabee a proponent of big-government is an
understatement. “If you listen closely, all the things he supports
increase the size, power and cost of government. From subsidies for energy
research to increasing money for health care and government housing, the size,
power, and cost of government will not shrink under a President Mike Huckabee;
they will increase . . . Mr. Huckabee swore an oath to support and defend the
Constitution when he became governor, yet many of his proposals are clearly
unconstitutional.” (Source: David Ulrich, Letter of the Week, World Net
Daily, 10/26/07)

In addition, Dr. Jerome Corsi reports that
“Financial inducements arranged by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee to
establish a Mexican consular office in Little Rock may have violated state law,
according to an Arkansas attorney.”

Writing for World Net Daily, Dr. Corsi exposed the fact
that Mike Huckabee “worked with some of the state’s most prominent and
politically powerful businesses to establish the [Mexican] consulate as a
magnet for drawing illegal immigrants to the state to accept low-paying
jobs.”

Corsi goes on to report that “Arkansas attorney Chip
Sexton provided WND a written legal brief arguing the state government’s
sublease to Mexico of office space for the consulate was illegal under Arkansas
law. Sexton contended the deal raised questions about the appropriateness of
private citizens and corporations in Arkansas providing financial incentives
for the government of Mexico to locate a consulate office in Little Rock.”

Corsi also writes that “Robert Trevino, commissioner
of Arkansas Rehabilitation Services, told WND he and Huckabee helped arrange
state and private financial support to induce Mexico to establish the consulate
as a business development ‘quid pro quo.’

“Trevino signed on July 7, 2006, a ‘Facilities Use
Agreement’ with Mexican consular officials to rent state government office
space for $1 a year on the second floor of the Arkansas Rehabilitation Services
building at 26 Corporate Hills in Little Rock.”

According to Sexton, not only did subleasing state
government offices to Mexico violate Arkansas state law under Ark. Code Ann.
22-2-114(C)(i) which provides: “After July 1, 1975, no state agency shall
enter into or renew or otherwise negotiate a lease between itself as lessor or
lessee and a nongovernmental or other government lessor or lessee,” but it
was even more offensive in that “there was nothing in the lease or other
agreements that would have prevented the Mexican consulate from providing legal
assistance to illegal aliens.”

In addition, Corsi also exposed the fact that Mike
Huckabee worked with Mexican President Vicente Fox to help provide cheap
Mexican labor for Tyson foods and other large Arkansas corporations. According
to Corsi, “Trevino confirmed he was state director of the League of United
Latin American Citizens, also known as LULAC, an activist group strongly
advocating for the rights of Hispanic immigrants in the U.S., when on Oct. 3,
2003, he accompanied Huckabee in a state airplane to visit [President Vicente]
Fox in Mexico.”

There is more.

The American Spectator reported that “Fourteen
times, the ethics commission–a respected body, not a partisan witch-hunt
group– investigated claims against Huckabee. Five of those times, it
officially reprimanded him. And as only MSNBC among the big national media has
reported at an real length, there were lots of other mini-scandals and
embarrassments along the way.”

Plus, writing for The Washington Times, Greg Pierce
quoted Hillyer as saying, “[Huckabee] used public money for family
restaurant meals, boat expenses, and other personal uses. He tried to claim as
his own some $70,000 of furniture donated to the governor’s mansion. He
repeatedly, and obstinately, against the pleadings even from conservative
columnists and editorials, refused to divulge the names of donors to a
‘charitable’ organization he set up while lieutenant governor–an outfit whose
main charitable purpose seemed to be to pay Huckabee to make speeches. Then, as
a kicker, he misreported the income itself from the suspicious ‘charity.'”

Mike Huckabee’s beliefs and actions even border on the
bizarre. According to David Keene, Chairman of the American Conservative Union,
“GOP presidential wannabe Mike Huckabee suggested that as president he
would, for the good of the people, support a federal anti-smoking law. You see,
as governor, Huckabee supported such laws because, well, he doesn’t like
smoking and doesn’t think folks should indulge in so heath-threatening an
activity. If he could move on up to the presidency, he would continue his
abolitionist crusade at the national level without giving much, if any, thought
to the question of whether the Constitution or anything else would legitimize a
federal ban on smoking.”

I have yet one more word of warning for those
evangelicals supporting Huckabee because he is pro-life: Mike Huckabee will
most definitely support Rudy Giuliani should Giuliani obtain the Republican
nomination. Count on it.

I ask you, how could a committed “pro-life”
conservative support a pro- abortion, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control liberal
such as Rudy Giuliani? He couldn’t.

At the end of the day, however, there is absolutely no
question that Huckabee will support Giuliani (or any other pro-abortion
Republican), because, when all is said and done, Huckabee and his fellow big-
government Republicans have no real commitment to the life issue or to any
other conservative principle.

Let’s say it plainly: Mike Huckabee is just another
big-government, establishment politician who will do nothing to stem the tide
of socialism or fascism (pick your poison) emanating from Washington, D.C.,
these days.

Dear Christian friend, don’t be duped by Mike Huckabee.

© Chuck Baldwin

Huckabee shameful record, Presidential Candidates

Novak outs Huckabee

349 Comments

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/25/AR2007112501547_pf.html

 

The False
Conservative

By Robert D. Novak
Monday, November 26, 2007; A15

Who would respond to criticism from
the Club for Growth by calling the
conservative, free-market campaign organization the “Club for Greed”?
That sounds like Howard Dean, Dennis
Kucinich or John
Edwards, all Democrats preaching the class struggle. In fact, the rejoinder
comes from Mike
Huckabee, who has broken out of the pack of second-tier Republican
presidential candidates to become a serious contender — definitely in Iowa
and perhaps nationally.

Huckabee is campaigning as a
conservative, but serious Republicans know that he is a high-tax, protectionist
advocate of big government and a strong hand in the Oval
Office directing the lives of Americans. Until now, they did not bother to
expose the former governor of Arkansas
as a false conservative because he seemed an underfunded, unknown nuisance
candidate. Now that he has pulled
even with Mitt
Romney for the Iowa caucuses and might make more progress, the beleaguered
Republican Party has a frightening problem.

The rise of evangelical Christians
as the force that blasted the GOP
out of minority status during the past generation always contained an inherent
danger: What if these new Republican acolytes supported not merely a
conventional conservative but one of their own? That has happened with
Huckabee, a former Baptist minister educated at Ouachita Baptist University and
Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. The danger is a serious contender
for the nomination who passes the litmus test of social conservatives on
abortion, gay marriage and gun control but is far removed from the
conservative-libertarian model of Barry
Goldwater and Ronald
Reagan.

There is no doubt about Huckabee’s
record during a decade in Little
Rock. He was regarded by fellow Republican governors as a compulsive
tax-and-spender. He increased the Arkansas tax burden 47 percent, boosting the
levies on gasoline and cigarettes. When he lost 100 pounds and decided to press
his new lifestyle on the American people, he was hardly being a
Goldwater-Reagan libertarian.

As a presidential candidate,
Huckabee has sought to counteract his reputation as a taxer by pressing for
replacement of the income tax with a sales tax. More recently he signed the
no-tax-increase pledge of Americans for Tax Reform.
But Huckabee simply does not fit within normal boundaries of economic
conservatism, such as when he criticized President
Bush‘s veto of a Democratic expansion of the State Children’s Health
Insurance Program. Calling global warming a “moral issue” mandating
“a biblical duty” to prevent climate change, he has endorsed a
cap-and-trade system that is anathema to the free market.

Huckabee clearly departs from the
mainstream of the conservative movement in his confusion of “growth”
with “greed.” Such ad hominem attacks are part of his intuitive
response to criticism from the Club
for Growth and the libertarian Cato Institute
about his record as governor. On “Fox
News Sunday” on Nov. 18, he called the
“tactics” of the Club for Growth “some of the most despicable in
politics today. It’s why I love to call them the Club for Greed, because they
won’t tell you who gave their money.” In fact, all contributors to the organization’s
political action committee (which produces campaign ads) are publicly revealed,
as are most donors financing issue ads.

Quin Hillyer, a former Arkansas
journalist writing in the conservative American Spectator, called Huckabee
“a guy with a thin skin, a nasty vindictive streak.” Huckabee’s
retort was to attack Hillyer’s journalistic procedures, fitting a mean-spirited
image when he responds to conservative criticism.

Nevertheless, he is getting
remarkably warm reviews in the news media as the most humorous, entertaining
and interesting GOP presidential hopeful. Contrary to descriptions by old
associates, he is now called “jovial” or “good-natured.”
Any Republican who does not sound much like a Republican is bound to get friendly
press, as Sen. John
McCain did in 2000 (but not today, with his return to acting more like a
conventional Republican).

An uncompromising foe of abortion
can never enjoy full media backing. But Mike
Huckabee is getting enough favorable buzz that, when combined with his
evangelical base, it makes real conservatives shudder.

 

Huckabee illegal Consulate, Huckabee shameful record, Presidential Candidates

Pastor Baldwin exposes Huckabee

420 Comments

 

 

http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin414.htm

 

MORE REASONS TO BEWARE
OF MIKE HUCKABEE

 

 

By Pastor Chuck Baldwin

November 27, 2007

NewsWithViews.com

Many Christian
conservatives see Mike Huckabee as the best candidate to deliver the GOP from
an impending pro-abortion presidential nomination of either Rudy Giuliani or
Mitt Romney. Huckabee is doing especially well in Iowa, particularly among
evangelicals. Is Mike Huckabee worthy of this support, however? The facts say
no.

I have already
attempted to warn my evangelical brethren as to the dangers of supporting Mike
Huckabee. See
here. However, that first column was just the tip of the proverbial
iceberg. Here are more reasons to beware of Mike Huckabee.

Robert Novak
recently wrote a column about Mike Huckabee entitled, “The
False Conservative.” In the column he said, “Huckabee is
campaigning as a conservative, but serious Republicans know that he is a
high-tax, protectionist, big-government advocate of a strong hand in the Oval
Office directing the lives of Americans.”

Novak also
said, “There is no doubt about Huckabee’s record during a decade in Little
Rock as governor. . . He increased the Arkansas tax burden by 47 percent,
boosting the levies on gasoline and cigarettes.”

Novak continued
saying, “Quin Hillyer, a former Arkansas journalist writing in the
conservative American Spectator, called Huckabee ‘a guy with a thin skin, a
nasty vindictive streak.’ Huckabee’s retort was to attack Hillyer’s
journalistic procedures, fitting a mean-spirited image when he responds to
conservative criticism.”

Calling
Huckabee a proponent of big-government is an understatement. “If you
listen closely, all the things he supports increase the size, power and cost of
government. From subsidies for energy research to increasing money for health
care and government housing, the size, power, and cost of government will not
shrink under a President Mike Huckabee; they will increase . . . Mr. Huckabee
swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution when he became governor, yet
many of his proposals are clearly unconstitutional.” (Source: David
Ulrich, Letter of the Week, World Net Daily, 10/26/07)

In addition,
Dr. Jerome Corsi reports that “Financial inducements arranged by former
Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee to establish a Mexican consular office in Little
Rock may have violated state law, according to an Arkansas attorney.”

Writing for
World Net Daily, Dr. Corsi exposed the fact that Mike Huckabee “worked
with some of the state’s most prominent and politically powerful businesses to
establish the [Mexican] consulate as a magnet for drawing illegal immigrants to
the state to accept low-paying jobs.”

Corsi goes on
to report that “Arkansas attorney Chip Sexton provided WND a written legal
brief arguing the state government’s sublease to Mexico of office space for the
consulate was illegal under Arkansas law. Sexton contended the deal raised
questions about the appropriateness of private citizens and corporations in
Arkansas providing financial incentives for the government of Mexico to locate
a consulate office in Little Rock.”

Corsi also
writes that “Robert Trevino, commissioner of Arkansas Rehabilitation
Services, told WND he and Huckabee helped arrange state and private financial
support to induce Mexico to establish the consulate as a business development
‘quid pro quo.’

“Trevino
signed on July 7, 2006, a ‘Facilities Use Agreement’ with Mexican consular
officials to rent state government office space for $1 a year on the second
floor of the Arkansas Rehabilitation Services building at 26 Corporate Hills in
Little Rock.”

According to
Sexton, not only did subleasing state government offices to Mexico violate
Arkansas state law under Ark. Code Ann. 22-2-114(C)(i) which provides:
“After July 1, 1975, no state agency shall enter into or renew or
otherwise negotiate a lease between itself as lessor or lessee and a
nongovernmental or other government lessor or lessee,” but it was even
more offensive in that “there was nothing in the lease or other agreements
that would have prevented the Mexican consulate from providing legal assistance
to illegal aliens.”

In addition,
Corsi also exposed the fact that Mike Huckabee worked with Mexican President
Vicente Fox to help provide cheap Mexican labor for Tyson foods and other large
Arkansas corporations. According to Corsi, “Trevino confirmed he was state
director of the League of United Latin American Citizens, also known as LULAC,
an activist group strongly advocating for the rights of Hispanic immigrants in
the U.S., when on Oct. 3, 2003, he accompanied Huckabee in a state airplane to
visit [President Vicente] Fox in Mexico.”

There is more.

The American
Spectator reported that “Fourteen times, the ethics commission–a
respected body, not a partisan witch-hunt group–investigated claims against
Huckabee. Five of those times, it officially reprimanded him. And as only MSNBC
among the big national media has reported at an real length, there were lots of
other mini-scandals and embarrassments along the way.”

Plus, writing
for The Washington Times, Greg Pierce quoted Hillyer as saying,
“[Huckabee] used public money for family restaurant meals, boat expenses,
and other personal uses. He tried to claim as his own some $70,000 of furniture
donated to the governor’s mansion. He repeatedly, and obstinately, against the
pleadings even from conservative columnists and editorials, refused to divulge
the names of donors to a ‘charitable’ organization he set up while lieutenant
governor–an outfit whose main charitable purpose seemed to be to pay Huckabee
to make speeches. Then, as a kicker, he misreported the income itself from the
suspicious ‘charity.'”

Mike Huckabee’s
beliefs and actions even border on the bizarre. According to David Keene,
Chairman of the American Conservative Union, “GOP presidential wannabe
Mike Huckabee suggested that as president he would, for the good of the people,
support a federal anti-smoking law. You see, as governor, Huckabee supported
such laws because, well, he doesn’t like smoking and doesn’t think folks should
indulge in so heath-threatening an activity. If he could move on up to the
presidency, he would continue his abolitionist crusade at the national level
without giving much, if any, thought to the question of whether the
Constitution or anything else would legitimize a federal ban on smoking.”

I have yet one
more word of warning for those evangelicals supporting Huckabee because he is
pro-life: Mike Huckabee will most definitely support Rudy Giuliani should
Giuliani obtain the Republican nomination. Count on it.

I ask you, how
could a committed “pro-life” conservative support a pro-abortion,
pro-gay rights, pro-gun control liberal such as Rudy Giuliani? He couldn’t.

At the end of
the day, however, there is absolutely no question that Huckabee will support
Giuliani (or any other pro-abortion Republican), because, when all is said and
done, Huckabee and his fellow big-government Republicans have no real
commitment to the life issue or to any other conservative principle.

Let’s say it
plainly: Mike Huckabee is just another big-government, establishment politician
who will do nothing to stem the tide of socialism or fascism (pick your poison)
emanating from Washington, D.C., these days.

Dear Christian
friend, don’t be duped by Mike Huckabee.

 

Expose, Rebuke, Return