Monday, December 31, 2007

Huckabee endorsed?

I will not be continuing my Creationism posts today. I do plan to return to them soon.

Then, I plan to answer the response about Iraq. I am sorry for the change in plans. Plans, in reality, often are altered for one reason or another. “The best laid plans … often go astray.” Thank you for your understanding and patience.

How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish, barbaric decisions of the United States Supreme Court?

Stop the
Murder of

“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)

On my first endorsement post, I rejected all Democratic candidates for the Presidency and Republican Rudy Giuliani because they all support the murder of unborn babies. I have since rejected John McCain and Mitt Romney as possible Republican candidates for endorsement in the primary. Tonight I discuss Mike Huckabee.

First though, being President of the United States is unlike any other elected governmental position in the nation. Counting George W. Bush, only 42 people have held the office in our history. Obviously, none of the present candidates have ever held the position. Being governor of any State is not even close to being the President of the United States. Consequently, no one knows with certainty how any of the candidates will actually perform in the office or whether or not they will have a successful (How does one define successful?) administration. Some Presidents grow substantially while in office; some falter. We will NOT know the result until after the fact and even then there will be disagreement (sometimes—often—violate disagreement) over whether the administration was a success or not. That’s politics in the United States.

For President of the United States, I want a candidate who believes and supports the policy and the principles he advocates. I do not want a President who bases his latest decisions on the most current public opinion polls or changes his positions based upon the office he is running for or qualifies his answers if he believes it is politically expedient. That is not leadership!!! That demonstrates an abysmal lack of leadership. I want a leader who will lead the nation; not a follower who follows the latest whims as determined by some public opinion poll which are often wrong (or at least misleading depending upon how the questions are worded and a whole host of other variables) and which almost never measure the intensity of the opinions. I want a leader who has established his deep convictions and principles and sticks with those established convictions and principles. I don’t want a leader who qualifies his principles and convictions for political gain. I don’t want a leader who declares “I believe in ‘A’ but I can support part of ‘B’ which contradicts ‘A’ if it helps me get elected.”

Earlier this year in May, I wrote a series of posts entitled “Evolution and Presidential candidates.” Below are two portions of those posts that pertain to Mike Huckabee and whether or not I am willing to endorse him for the Presidency. It might be of benefit to go back and read the two posts in their entirety.

“Evolution and Presidential candidates written May 14, 2007

Science writer Randolph Schmid should realize this as well. What Christians do not accept as true is species evolution. They do not accept it because it has never been shown to be true and it is contrary to the WORD of GOD. There is no factual, scientific evidence to support the theory that species “A” evolved into species “B” which evolved into species “C” which evolved into species “D” which through continuing species evolution eventually over millions and/or billions of years evolved into man.

That theory has never been demonstrated scientifically to be true! That theory in fact can not be demonstrated to be true without first proving how nothing became something. Then, how that something which did not have life; suddenly and miraculously became alive?

Two other questions that evolutionists ignore. They ignore them because they can’t possibly answer the questions scientifically. When the first whatever evolved into man, how did the man reproduce? Did the first woman also miraculously evolve at just that exact time? Did evolution occur at numerous points where there were a flock of men and they didn’t have to reproduce for awhile? If so, why did that process stop and reproduction become necessary?

This is a problem not just in relation to man. What of all the other species that require a male and female for reproduction? What a miracle. The male and female must have evolved at just the same time!!! Miraculous!!! But then, Darwin’s theory needs a lot of miracles!!!!!

Also, why did evolution stop at man? Our science fiction writers think up superior species all the time. We even make movies about them. Yet, none of them exist. We are all just men and women? Why? What stopped the evolutionary process?

You know the evolutionist rationale don’t you? ‘Well, we need a couple of more millions of years for that to happen.’ Of course, they won’t be around to know if it happens or not—at least not in their present physical bodies. Just like the global warming alarmists, they seem to think they can predict the future.

And they claim to be scientific!!! Not a chance. It is all speculative garbage when they claim man evolved through the centuries from a beginning single celled thing. Garbage!!! And they teach that garbage in schools as truth!!!”

Here is a qualification on what I had written above. I may have used the term “species” somewhat incorrectly. I confess it has been a while since I’ve had a science class and my concept of “species” may not be the same as used in science classes. The idea is correct though. Never has any scientific data shown that a tiny single celled creature changed to another “kind” of creature (I’m currently reading Refuting Evolution 2 by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph. D. with Mike Matthews and he asserts creationists should use the term “kind”, which is the biblical term, instead of “species”.), which changed to a different “kind” of creature, on up the ladder to some “kind” of creature—monkey or whatever—which changed into a man. NEVER!!! Nor will it ever scientifically be proven because it is not scientifically possible!!!”

“Evolution and Presidential candidates, part 3 written May 17, 2007

Next VandeHei asked: Is there anyone on the stage who doesn’t believe in evolution? Three raised their hands—Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, Former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas and Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado. (The response, or lack thereof, of the other Republican Presidential candidates helps narrow down the choice of who to support for President. What Christian could support any of the other candidates who did not declare that the lie of slime to man is not only idiotic science but is also directly contrary to the WORD of GOD. Open up the Bible. What is the first sentence in the first paragraph of the first book of the Bible? “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Genesis 1: 1 (NIV) If a Christian does not believe that relevant statement, how can he believe any part of the Bible? If that statement is not true, how can one claim to believe the WORD of GOD? Those who do not believe that GOD created are declaring that the WORD of GOD begins with a fundamental lie. That too is nonsense. Either Darwin’s slime to man is wrong or the WORD of GOD is wrong!!! It can not be both!!! Who should Christians support? Hasn’t it been narrowed down? Who were the three candidates on that stage who declared that they believe the WORD of GOD? The only three mentioned in the article were Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, Former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, and Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado. This was a good question!!! It helps Christians know who actually believes what the WORD of GOD says rather that humanistic lies and unscientific nonsense.—my addition)”

“In a conversation after the debate, Huckabee said, ‘I wish life were so simple. If it were, we’d be in a game show and not running a presidential campaign. … If I’d had time, I would have asked whether he meant macro or micro evolution?’ (Is Mr. Huckabee trying to hedge his response? The question was understood. Is he also trying to walk the fence? The question most assuredly was in reference to slime to man. That is the controversy. Why ask an uncontroversial question about something that is not normally considered a political question?—my addition)

That’s a different sort of answer than what is inferred from a simple ‘no’ forced by the manic pace of a 90-minute ‘debate’ among 10 candidates, none of whom is qualified to seriously debate scientific theory. Nor, as president, should they try. In fact, Huckabee says he does believe in evolution (with qualifications) and thinks Darwin’s theory should be taught in schools. (I also believe Darwin’s concept of slime to man should be taught in schools. Does that surprise you? I believe it should be taught as an example of unscientific nonsense which can be latched on to by humanists who are supporting beliefs over the truth. It should be recognized as the lie that it is. It should be used as an example of how not to use the scientific method. It should be taught as an example of how the “squeaky wheel” can abuse the concept of scientific discovery. It is a prime example of how not to be scientific. It should be taught that slime to man is a humanistic lie. Do you think that will be taught? Now the choices are down to two of the Republicans who were on that stage that night and one question mark.—my addition)”

Since those posts were written, both Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas and Representative Tom Tancredo of Colorado have dropped out of the Presidential race—of the three only Mike Huckabee remains. Mike Huckabee is no longer a question mark. As I stated above, I don’t want a leader who declares “I believe in ‘A’ but I can support part of ‘B’ which contradicts ‘A’ if it helps me get elected.” I want a candidate who believes and supports the policy and the principles he advocates. I do not want a President who qualifies his answers if he believes it is politically expedient. That is not leadership!!! That demonstrates an abysmal lack of leadership. I want a leader who will lead the nation; not a follower who molds his answers to satisfy the media and its cohorts. I want a leader who has established his deep convictions and principles and sticks with those established convictions and principles. The waffling by Mike Huckabee on the question of evolution seems to indicate that he is not willing to stand up for his fundamental convictions if it might mean losing some support. He, like Senator McCain, can not have it both ways!!!

Mike Huckabee is also promoting a policy that he calls the FairTax. Now, it is easy to label something as fair. The label does not necessarily make it so. I happen to know something about taxes and hope to address his proposal in greater detail in a later post. For now, I have only a few comments based upon information posted on his website about his proposal for a “FairTax.” Below are two partial paragraphs from his website concerning his proposal.
“The FairTax will replace the Internal Revenue Code with a consumption tax, like the taxes on retail sales forty-five states and the District of Columbia have now. All of us will get a monthly rebate that will reimburse us for taxes on purchases up to the poverty line, so that we're not taxed on necessities. That means people below the poverty line won't be taxed at all. We'll be taxed on what we decide to buy, not what we happen to earn. We won't be taxed on what we choose to save or the interest those savings earn. The tax will apply only to new goods, so we can reduce our taxes further by buying a used car or computer.”

“The FairTax is also progressive, but it doesn't punish the American dream of success, or the old-fashioned virtues of hard work and thrift, it rewards and encourages them. The FairTax isn't intended to raise any more or less money for the federal government to spend—it is revenue neutral.”

First, as is alluded to but not specifically stated, what Mike Huckabee is proposing is a national sales tax. Some States, including some portions of Illinois when including local sales tax, collect 8% or more on taxed commodities. Here are some preliminary questions that Mike Huckabee should, no, MUST answer about his proposal but does not answer on his website:

1) First and foremost, what percentage will this national sales tax be? 10%? 15%? 20%? 25%, 30%, more than 30% or less than 10%?

2) Since the income tax is allowed by Constitutional amendment, will a Constitutional amendment be necessary to implement his proposed national sales tax?

3) Since the income tax is allowed by Constitutional amendment, will a Constitutional amendment be necessary to eliminate the income tax?

4) If not, will a future President along with Congress be able to reinstate the income tax system and keep the national sales tax system too so that we will be paying both an income tax and a national sales tax?

5) Does he really propose that the national government send a monthly tax rebate to millionaires so that their four member family will be rebated money each month up to the poverty level?

6) Will all new purchases be taxed? If an individual buys a $300,000 home will he also pay a sales tax on the purchase of that home? For example, if the national sales tax is at 25%, will that $300,000 purchased home now cost $375,000? Isn’t that a discouragement to buying a new home?

7) Will the purchase of food be taxed? When I moved from Arizona in 2004, Arizona did NOT tax food—however food is a new good. Illinois taxes food at a lower percentage than other goods. Will we now pay a national sales tax every time we purchase food?

8) Will services now be taxed? Will some services be taxed and others not? For example, legal services? Banking transactions? Cleaning your home? Education? Entertainment? Car repairs?

9) Who will collect these taxes for the government? Will the businesses? Will the national government now monitor all businesses to insure that the correct amount of tax is collected and transmitted to the federal government? Will this occur daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly?

10) Will this system promote an “underground” economy where goods and services are sold “off the books” to prevent having to pay the national sales tax?

11) Will this system, discourage charitable giving since there will no longer be an income tax advantage to donate to charities?

I think you get the idea. Any such radical plan needs to be fully explained before any rational voter should be willing to support a proposal that may radically change who is taxed and how much they are taxed. Whether or not his proposal is truly progressive, regressive, or proportional is debatable. Because Mike Huckabee proclaims it to be progressive does not make it progressive. In fact, most economists maintain that a sales tax is regressive in nature and often very regressive in nature.

For the primary election, I want to support the candidate that comes closest to my convictions and beliefs and who has a positive history supporting those positions. Mike Huckabee IS NOT that person. If my candidate does not win the Republican nomination, then it will be time to reevaluate the situation and determine if the nominee qualifies to win my vote for the general election. I am not going to surrender my convictions at any time. I will certainly not compromise them in the primary with the “hope” of selecting an “electable candidate.”

I will not support Mike Huckabee in the primary election. Should he win the nomination, I am not certain I would vote for him for the Presidency. However, given the Democratic candidates, I probably will unless an attractive third alternative is available. As has been pointed out, Bill Clinton probably won the Presidency twice because of the third party presence of Ross Perot. I am more inclined to support Mike Huckabee for the Presidency that the previous candidates discussed. However, he is not my first choice.

For the primary: Mike Huckabee is NOT endorsed!!!


Post a Comment

<< Home