This is my fourth and final blog on presidential candidates. If events arise that justify it, I will address political matters in the future. But for now, this is it. Next week I’ll return to normal blogging, whatever that may bring. (Maybe something about Dietrich Bonhoeffer or C. S. Lewis, who I’ve been rereading lately.)
I said I’d comment on Ron Paul, the Texas congressman with libertarian ideals who is running for the Republican nomination. Dr. Paul has a very large financial base, and the most loyal and outspoken constituency on the Internet. He opposes abortion, and I greatly respect him for that.
Three weeks ago, after my first Mike Huckabee blog, a number of Ron Paul supporters encouraged me to check into him. I did so, going to his website and elsewhere. As with other candidates, I found the most helpful information by reading and listening to his words at the Values Voters Debate.
Despite my appreciation for his stand against abortion, and my impression that he is sincere and honest, I am concerned about a number of Ron Paul’s positions. For instance, regarding radical Islam and terrorism, he said:
We have to understand the motives of those who come here & kill us. If we don’t understand that, we are not going to win this fight. They come here and kill us because we occupy their lands, and they rationally reason [that] we have to do something about it.
This seems a naïve response. Like “they’re only defending themselves, and if we stay away from them, they won’t try to hurt us.” In contrast, Mike Huckabee responded,
The threat we face is one a lot of Americans don’t fully comprehend or understand. This isn’t a typical geo-political war. It’s a war against an enemy that has no national borders or boundaries. It’s a theological war. It’s not politically correct to say that. It’s just the truth. We are fighting people whose religious fanaticism will not be satisfied until every last one of us is dead, until our culture, our society, is completely obliterated from the face of the earth. It is the perfect marriage of religion & state, and that’s why it is so incredibly dangerous, more so than any enemy we face. And here’s the reality. War is about will. Whoever chooses to leave loses. We can’t afford to lose, because this is not a war about Iraq, it’s not a war about Afghanistan, it’s a war about our survival as a civilization and as a people, and every effort must be made to defend this great country against it.
At the debate, there was a series of questions in response to which every other candidate took the same position except Ron Paul (which would be to his credit, if they were all wrong and he was right). One related to endorsing attempts to protect Iraqi Christians under provisions in Iraq's existing constitution. Only Ron Paul said no to this.
I was moved when Bobby Schindler said to the candidates, “I’m with the Terry Schindler Schiavo Foundation. My beloved sister starved and dehydrated to death in a land of abundance, while the world watched—because she was disabled and unable to speak for herself. My question is, would you pursue or support legislation that would protect the cognitively disabled from being dehydrated to death by having their food and water taken away?”
Again, Ron Paul voted no. All the others voted yes.
Janet Folger, who was at the Summit, appraised Paul this way:
I was moved when Bobby Schindler said to the candidates, “I’m with the Terry Schindler Schiavo Foundation. My beloved sister starved and dehydrated to death in a land of abundance, while the world watched—because she was disabled and unable to speak for herself. My question is, would you pursue or support legislation that would protect the cognitively disabled from being dehydrated to death by having their food and water taken away?”
Again, Ron Paul voted no. All the others voted yes.
Janet Folger, who was at the Summit, appraised Paul this way:
Here’s what I saw: While he’s been a courageous defender of the Constitution, Ron Paul had too many wrong answers at the Values Voter Debate to receive our support. Save your angry e-mails until you’ve seen the video of his podium lit “red” with “no votes” while everyone else voted “yes” to questions about whether they would protect disabled patients like Terri Schiavo from a starvation death, agree to prosecute all violators of the federal obscenity law, and support a trade policy with China contingent on improved human rights and quality standards.
Joe Glover of the Family Policy Network clarified it further when he asked Paul: “Many libertarians oppose laws against same-sex marriage, prostitution, and illegal drugs. Do you share this view?” Go watch it for yourself at http://www.valuesvoterdebate.com/. His answer was “yes,” he’s a libertarian and doesn’t think the government has any business protecting marriage and human life.
Thomas Jefferson seems to disagree with Ron Paul when he said, “The care of human life and not its destruction is the first and only legitimate object of good government.”
I respect Ron Paul’s courage in taking many minority opinions in Congress and at the Summit. I respect his commitment to stand by his principles, even when it’s unpopular. I would support him if I didn’t believe he’s wrong in a number of significant areas. I’m convinced the sanctity of human life must include not only the unborn, but other defenseless people (such as Terry Schiavo), beginning in our own country and extending to places where we at least have some influence on our international trade partners.
If you’d like to learn more about Ron Paul, check out his website.
If you’d like to learn more about Mike Huckabee, go to his website.
Why Bother with Politics?
So why have I, someone who doesn’t enjoy politics or follow them closely, taken the time to research and write four blogs on the candidates? Why do I even care? Here are perhaps my four best answers:
I respect Ron Paul’s courage in taking many minority opinions in Congress and at the Summit. I respect his commitment to stand by his principles, even when it’s unpopular. I would support him if I didn’t believe he’s wrong in a number of significant areas. I’m convinced the sanctity of human life must include not only the unborn, but other defenseless people (such as Terry Schiavo), beginning in our own country and extending to places where we at least have some influence on our international trade partners.
If you’d like to learn more about Ron Paul, check out his website.
If you’d like to learn more about Mike Huckabee, go to his website.
Why Bother with Politics?
So why have I, someone who doesn’t enjoy politics or follow them closely, taken the time to research and write four blogs on the candidates? Why do I even care? Here are perhaps my four best answers:
Yes, it was the end of a long day for my three oldest grandsons, Matthew Franklin, Ty Stump and his big brother Jake, who settled down on our bed to watch the always-exciting adventures of The Donut Man. Jack Franklin, our youngest grandson, was more bright-eyed. Visions of politics were not dancing in any of their heads.
I realize these precious children, and yours, are not going to grow up in a perfect society. And I know that politics aren’t the ultimate solution to anything. But I also know that the personal integrity and convictions and vision of those leading our country will have a real effect on the world in which these children live.
Having witnessed the profound moral decline and erosion of values and spiritual confusion in this culture in the fifty-three years I’ve been alive, and the thirty-five or so I’ve known Christ, I hope and pray for some kind of reversal, or at least some slow-down in the deterioration. Because if things continue as they have, these boys, by the time they are men, will be part of a society so heavy under the hand of God’s judgment that it might never turn back. (I’ve been feeling the weight of the beginnings of His judgment on our self-destructing culture for decades, but dare not presume upon His infinite patience.)
I do not assume, as many Christians appear to, that Christ will return to deliver us before things further deteriorate. Scripture nowhere promises that. Every decade since the 1960s there have been prophecy teachers convinced that the Lord will undoubtedly return within a few years (as a young Christian I believed them), but He has not yet obliged any of them.
I know Jesus will in fact return as King of Kings, and establish a new heavens and earth overflowing with righteousness (2 Peter 3:13). But that could be hundreds of years from now. Meanwhile our children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren will have to live in the society we leave them. If we have failed to bring Jesus to every corner of it we could—and to this point we certainly have failed—they will pay the price.
I don’t believe we should stand by passively and watch our culture go down the drain, imagining that ours is a “higher” spiritual calling. You know, like, “Why bother rearranging the furniture on the Titanic? It’s going down away, no matter what we do.”
Yes, the earth will be destroyed by fire (2 Peter 3), but we don’t know the timetable. God never withdrew His delegation for us to govern this earth, even under the fall and curse. Believers are to be salt and light, bringing Jesus to all the problems and needs of our culture.
I don’t want to stand before Christ and have to answer the question, “Why didn’t you do more to uphold me and my truths in the midst of that dying culture? If you had, perhaps I would have withheld judgment and brought transformation and healing.”
That’s why I bother with politics, without putting undue trust in them. It may not be much, but I owe it to my Lord, and to my children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren, to do what I reasonably can.
Meanwhile, regardless of where America or western civilization goes, may we as God’s people devote ourselves to passing on to our families what they so desperately need, that they may love our Savior in this broken world, for God’s glory and their good:
I realize these precious children, and yours, are not going to grow up in a perfect society. And I know that politics aren’t the ultimate solution to anything. But I also know that the personal integrity and convictions and vision of those leading our country will have a real effect on the world in which these children live.
Having witnessed the profound moral decline and erosion of values and spiritual confusion in this culture in the fifty-three years I’ve been alive, and the thirty-five or so I’ve known Christ, I hope and pray for some kind of reversal, or at least some slow-down in the deterioration. Because if things continue as they have, these boys, by the time they are men, will be part of a society so heavy under the hand of God’s judgment that it might never turn back. (I’ve been feeling the weight of the beginnings of His judgment on our self-destructing culture for decades, but dare not presume upon His infinite patience.)
I do not assume, as many Christians appear to, that Christ will return to deliver us before things further deteriorate. Scripture nowhere promises that. Every decade since the 1960s there have been prophecy teachers convinced that the Lord will undoubtedly return within a few years (as a young Christian I believed them), but He has not yet obliged any of them.
I know Jesus will in fact return as King of Kings, and establish a new heavens and earth overflowing with righteousness (2 Peter 3:13). But that could be hundreds of years from now. Meanwhile our children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren will have to live in the society we leave them. If we have failed to bring Jesus to every corner of it we could—and to this point we certainly have failed—they will pay the price.
I don’t believe we should stand by passively and watch our culture go down the drain, imagining that ours is a “higher” spiritual calling. You know, like, “Why bother rearranging the furniture on the Titanic? It’s going down away, no matter what we do.”
Yes, the earth will be destroyed by fire (2 Peter 3), but we don’t know the timetable. God never withdrew His delegation for us to govern this earth, even under the fall and curse. Believers are to be salt and light, bringing Jesus to all the problems and needs of our culture.
I don’t want to stand before Christ and have to answer the question, “Why didn’t you do more to uphold me and my truths in the midst of that dying culture? If you had, perhaps I would have withheld judgment and brought transformation and healing.”
That’s why I bother with politics, without putting undue trust in them. It may not be much, but I owe it to my Lord, and to my children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren, to do what I reasonably can.
Meanwhile, regardless of where America or western civilization goes, may we as God’s people devote ourselves to passing on to our families what they so desperately need, that they may love our Savior in this broken world, for God’s glory and their good:
We will not hide them from their children; we will tell the next generation the praiseworthy deeds of the LORD, his power, and the wonders he has done….which he commanded our forefathers to teach their children, so the next generation would know them, even the children yet to be born, and they in turn would tell their children. Then they would put their trust in God and would not forget his deeds but would keep his commands. (Psalm 78:4-7)Randy Alcorn
http://www.randyalcorn.blogspot.com/
http://www.epm.org/
Comments:
Randy, I am really grateful that you took the time to consider Ron Paul. You provided some really good insight that I hadn't considered.
One side note is you mentioned he has a very large financial base, and I know this is nitpicking but it has a much larger significance at second glance. Ron Paul's average supporter donates somewhere around $100. That is the people of American digging deep into their pockets, not the elite and the corporations with their own prerogative.
I'm convinced the Constitution (in it's purest form) is still worth fighting for, for the freedom and liberties that we as Christians enjoy. It seems to me the farther we stray from the Constitution, the worse things will turn out when the majority turns on us.
Randy, just thank you for this:
I don’t want to stand before Christ and have to answer the question, “Why didn’t you do more to uphold me and my truths in the midst of that dying culture? If you had, perhaps I would have withheld judgment and brought transformation and healing.”
Amen, brother.
I've been enjoying your political posts, and I love, love, love that you stand up for what you believe in. Which is Christ, our Savior. :o) So refreshing.
But I must say, I am excited to read a post about Bonhoeffer. So, if you must choose between writing of Lewis and Bonhoeffer... go with Bonhoeffer for the next post! I am interested to see what you have to say.
Thank you, Randy, for all of your posts on these matters. It has given John & I a lot to talk about, think about, and most importantly, to pray about. I appreciate your insight.
Thanks again.
Anna Anderson
I'd also like to see a post about Bonhoeffer, maybe one on John Howard Yoder, too.
If you really believe that Islamic fascism is a threat that the government ought to deal with (I say it's overblown, and not new) and if you really believe that the government ought to legislate morality (I believe that only Christinas have the full and exclusive responsibility to care for the least of these) then I guess Huckabee must be your man.
I'm still for Paul.
I don't think the US government should help Iraqi Chrsitians. I think US Christians should do ti privately. I don't think the government should force someone to keep a Schiavo alive at their own expense, nor should the government pay for it, and if no Christian steps in willing to pay for it themselves then no Christian has a right to say anything about it. We must assume full responsibility where we impose moral values.
Juris Naturalist - Every law that government passes is an imposition of morality (either good or bad). If the town council says the main street speed limit is 35, and 45 mph motorists must be fined...that's a moral judgment. When the state government chooses to start a lotto to raise money for education...that's a moral judgment. When the feds order the starvation of a innocent women like Schiavo...that's a moral judgment.
Every law is a de facto declaration of right and wrong, good and evil. Our Founding Fathers certainly believed that government could legislate morality - they did it all the time (but not always correctly).
While I am an economic libertarian (mostly), I could never vote for a candidate who seems to put the Constitution over the Scriptures.
Randy,
I hope you don't mind but I would like to link your blog post to show people who are considering Ron Paul. I am a huge Ron Paul supporter and I am tired of pleading with people to give Ron Paul a fair look.
The fact that after giving him a fair look you did not agree with his positions actually makes your article that much more valuable for me. I am not trying to get people to agree with Ron Paul, I am trying to get people to understand him like you have.
Thank you!
This post helped me make a decision. Thank you for posting it.
Thank you for the thoughful analysis, Randy. I appreciate you taking time to speak out on this issue of great importance to our future.
I, too, am looking forward to reading more from you on other subjects. You should know that what you write here has a profound effect for His kingdom. Example: I have the pleasure of teaching a Bible story to about 300 1st through 4th Graders most Sundays, and I recently used a good bit of material from your "Freedom and Fences" posting to help illustrate the lesson. Ain't technology great? You never know how far your words will go...
BTW, I've had a copy of "Deception" on my shelf for a couple of weeks now, waiting for a good time to dig in. I finally got so frustrated with my lack of time to read that when I had about 15 minutes to spare last night, I sat down and read the first couple of chapters. Frankly, it just made me angry that I had to leave and go do something else - I didn't want to put your book down!!! I'm back on to it tonight, and really enjoying it.
Thanks for the joy you've brought to my life.
Paul
Randy,
The wisdom and discernment that God has given you has been a blessing in my life over the years. I appreciated your post very much.
Your position of islamic terrorism is very naive, you should read about a little something called BLOWBACK.
To a certain extent, I really do have to agree with the above comment. "Pre-emptive strike" is diametrically opposed to "turn the other cheek". That is a hard one to reconcile from a Christian point of view. It's a tough topic, which I can't say I have figured out either.
I 3rd the Bonhoeffer!
I doubt your children are going to enjoy all of the tax increases that "Tax Hike Mike" Huckabee puts into place. And I also doubt they're going to enjoy the big-government that Huckabee supports.
Someday there won't be religious people in office and corrupt men will use that SAME federal power (that Huckabee pushes for) to legislate and ban Christian principles completely!
Hopefully someday Christians will wake up! I appreciate you taking the time to look at Dr. Paul's campaign, but you've obviously taken a lot more information from Huckabee-lovers than you have from Dr. Paul himself.
Thank you for a clear assessment between Huckabee and Paul. As A Huckabee supporter, I'm glad to see we agree. Paul has also sound we can "talk to them" in reference to terrorists, you know, be diplomatic. Well, I'm all for trying, but if that doesn't work, then what? I gues many people just DON'T GET IT (the fact that Islamic terrorists are theologically driven to "wipe Israel [and us] off the map" - using the Iranian presidents own words.
My comment is about your future post though! I want to see a post on Lewis! Since another lady already suggested the alternative, I'm willing to wait. So, maybe you can do both over the next few weeks. Like, I said, I'll wait, so please so don't keep me on the edge of my seat!
(No pressure. Haha. :)
I've always thought you might be a star trek fan, as I've seen references by you in a lot of places. I understand a new movie is coming out for Star Trek sometime next year. It's about Star Fleet Academy. Sounds cool.
And to "anonymous" (telling, eh?), I would imagine that Randy did his OWN research into Mike Huckabee just as he did his OWN research in Ron Paul and made a choice based on his own reasoning and beliefs. That's was not really a fair a assessment, and sounds a lot like sour grapes to me - not to mention insulting to Mr. Alcorn personally. Low blow.
Ron Paul isn't against protecting the mentally disabled from being killed as Terri Shivo was. What Ron Paul is against is the usurptation of the national government to accomplish such an end. The protection of human life is the proper jurisdiction of the state governments.
Most of the items where value voters think they disagree with Ron Paul stems from a different understanding of the roles of the various levels of government (i.e., Federalism).
Please keep in mind; a national government that abuses its power to save lives can just as easily abuse it to end lives. That's where we are today; the national government's abuse of its Constitutional powers results in far more deaths (abortion is a big example of this) than in the protection of life. Ron Paul would return the national government to its proper limits, but Huckabee has shown no indication that he would. That's why I'm supporting Ron Paul instead of him.
Thanks Randy for a thoughtful post.
On the issue of terrorism, I think that both Dr. Paul and Gov. Huckabee are partially correct. It is true that the Islamic Fundamentalists hate us and would love to see us wiped out but I think it is also true that our actions are largely to blame for that hatred. Our government acts in ways that we perceive as best for us...which does not necessarily mean those actions are best for the peoples who experience them.
The way I see it, defeating Islamic Fascism is like defeating sin in our own lives. We can choose to deal with the symptoms (i.e., the specific sin or terrorist act) or we can choose to deal with the cause (i.e., our sinful nature or our interference in the internal affairs of Islamic nations). One method will lead to a series of victories followed by setbacks but will never end the war. The other will be extremely difficult to accomplish but will, in the end, lead to total victory.
SDG
David knepprath wrote:
"To a certain extent, I really do have to agree with the above comment. 'Pre-emptive strike' is diametrically opposed to "turn the other cheek". That is a hard one to reconcile from a Christian point of view. It's a tough topic, which I can't say I have figured out either."
I believe that Romans 13 is the answer to that dilemma. God has instituted governments to punish evil doers and protect the innocent. As individual believers we are to turn the other cheek but a government cannot do the same.
There are a whole lot of things I'd like to say in response to Randy's post and some of the comments, but Randy's post was so articulate and thoughtful that I feel like I need to go mull it over for awhile. I do, however, want to respond to the comments regarding the belief that Muslim desire for our destruction is in any way caused by our actions. It simply is not true. For those Muslims who desire our destruction (or conversion), it comes solely from their interpretation of their religion's teachings. It is, for them, a moral/religious imperative that they either proselytize and convert or else destroy the nonbelieving infidel. They might use American actions as an excuse or justification for their actions, but even if we did NOTHING they still would seek the same end for each individual who does not believe as they do: conversion or death. This is not the position of all followers of Islam, but it is the position of those who pose a threat to us. I do not hate Muslims, but I fear those who adhere to this radical interpretation of Islamic teachings, and I fear those non-Muslims who think we can change their position by "being nice" to them. It's not our actions they hate; it's our beliefs. (That being said, we as Christians still have the obligation to walk in love toward even those who hate us and seek our destruction. At age 47, after 30+ years as a Christian, I'm still trying to figure out how to do that.)
Ken, I appreciate your insight, but I guess I am still just struggling to apply scriptural principles to the governments actions. I think Rob Mellon Jr. did this very well a couple posts above.
Randy,
I want to commend you regarding your analysis of Dr. Paul for NOT commenting on the fact that 1 out of 2 Ron Paul supporters are members of the 911 Truth crowd, most of whom have seen a few too many Oliver Stone movies. If you can judge a person by the company they keep, then Dr. Paul has some 'splainin to do re the 911 Truthers... and of course Mike Huckabee wins the "company you keep" category hands down.
Just a thought...
Laura,
I agree with some of what you say regarding some muslims hating us because of our beliefs, that will, as you say, always be the case.
However, the radical sect of Islam that seeks our destruction on OUR soil did not do so until we had stationed troops on THEIR soil for more than a decade (We've been in Saudi Arabia since Gulf War I), which they see as an invasion of their holy land.
Again, you cannot solve a problem by dealing with the symptoms, you can only bring temporary relief. We must get at the root of why these people are willing to die to destroy some of us. I do not believe it is merely their ideology. If it is, we'd better be prepared to kill some 200 million muslims (estimating that about 10% share the Islamic Fascist ideology).
SDG
Rob
Randy,
I was especially touched in Safely Home when I read about the Chinese writing a cross in the dirt so others wouldn't notice but they would know each other as Christians.
Well, lo and behold, if th cover Story in this week's World magazine didn't include a story from John McCain about how when he was a POW this VERY THING happened to him by one of his captors - a man who would loosen his bindings hen no one was looking, yet they never spoke. McCain hopes to reunite with his captor someday. I hope you get your hands on it to read; it's very touching (this is not a political comment, I support Huckabee). I thought you may enjoy it since the first I had ever heard of this practice was from your book.
Treva
Mike Huckabee is being pushed by the Neo-Cons and MSM now.
Don't fall for the trick!
They're trying to make him look like the conservative to take votes away from Ron Paul b/c Rudy and Romney have no chance of getting the conservatice vote!
RON PAUL 2008: The Successor of Robert Taft and Ronald Reagan
It seems that Randy is not supporting Dr. Paul because Paul is "soft" on radical Islam. I really think that Randy and many others on this blog need to think about possible links between American imperial adventurism and the push from radical Islam. The way to change radical Islam is through free trade and constant exchange of ideas not by first strike assaults on Arab nations. American foreign policy under Bush has become really scary. The world is aghast. Ron Paul is for a free and powerful America but not for a self-righteous American empire. A more modest, stay at home America would be great for the whole world - and for Americans. I don't think having Huckabee as president would change anything for anyone. Chrisians should support anyone who wants to restrict the powers of government. Get government out of our face. Rob
Forgive the length of this comment, but I believe it's important that the whole truth be brought to light on this issue and that people do more research.
Anonymous said:
"...and of course Mike Huckabee wins the "company you keep" category hands down."
Wait a minute. People obviously aren't doing their homework.
This article by Pastor Chuck Baldwin is a must-read.
http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin414.htm
Here are a few quotes:
"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.'"
Please read the entire article.
I agree with the commenter who pointed out that so much of what we want the government to do for us (unconstitutionally) is actually the responsibility of the Church, which is not an organization but a body of real people.
It's time Christians stopped looking to the government and politics to 'save' this nation and the world.
People need to realize that the statements by Ron Paul at the Values Voters Debate don't fully represent his views. And if values are so important to these voters, why do they so easily ignore the ethics and integrity issues associated with Mike Huckabee? Just a few of which I quoted above.
From another Chuck Baldwin article we find these interesting quotes about Mike Huckabee:
"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?"
Why is it that if a candidate invokes his 'Christian faith' as a political tool, American Christians are willing to turn a blind eye to anything else he might do or say?
Dig deeper and do your homework thoroughly. Be a Berean in the politcal sphere.
Here's an article by Alan Stang with some very choice quotes:
"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... 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.”
http://www.newswithviews.com/Stang/alan17.htm
As to the 'war on terror' and Islam etc. and protecting our country -- how can we protect our country properly if we send the majority of our troops all over the world (and I don't mean just Iraq and Afghanistan) and then leave our borders porous?
Let's face it, it's the politics of fear that have brought George Bush this far and Mike Huckabee is looking to ride the wave even further. If we keep living as if there's an Islamic terrorist behind every tree we won't notice what they're doing to our liberties over there in Washington, D.C. Just what kind of a nation will we leave for our children and grandchildren when our religious liberties are no more?
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ~ Benjamin Franklin
Thank you so much for your timely article! I appreciate it very much. It was helpful for me.
Denice: Thanks for sharing your concerns about the ethical charges against Huckabee. I believe I should point out that, in politics, ethics charges are frequently used as a weapon against political opponents. This was, after all, the same democratic ethics panel that gave President Clinton a free pass.
As a fellow follower of Jesus Christ, as one who has read and greatly enjoyed many of your books and articles, and as a Ron Paul supporter, I’m thankful Mr. Alcorn that you took the time to seriously evaluate various presidential candidates.
However, I’m deeply disappointed and a bit frustrated that you and other Christians seem to have based on good deal of your decision not to support Ron Paul on the so-called “Values Voter Debate.”
Mr. Alcorn, a person as equipped as you in logic and rhetoric must have observed the leading and loaded nature of most of the questions asked in the “debate,” as well as the unreasonable forum that the candidates had with which to respond (i.e., “yes” or “no” answers). Mr. Alcorn, you know full well that some questions, especially questions related to morality and government power and constitutional law, often times simply cannot be adequately answered with a “yes” or “no.”
I realize that populists, demagogues, and hucksters often do very well in such forums. But the type of trusted, law-abiding leader we as Christians should desire to serve in public office often will not.
I do hope Mr. Alcorn that you will continue to consider Ron Paul as more information surfaces relating to Governor Huckabee’s record. In politics, past actions often speak louder than present words and promises.
I will take George Will's opinion when it comes to Conservative politics anyday.
Here is his column in the Post today:
December 3, 2007 -- ARTHUR Balfour, the British statesman, once said that a ri val's clarity was a liability because he had nothing to say. As the presidential nomination contests approach a crescendo, some candidates are making themselves perilously clear, one of them with the help of her helpmate.
Last Tuesday, Bill Clinton, trying to whet Iowans' appetites for another Clinton presidency, announced/discovered/remembered that he opposed the Iraq War "from the beginning," thereby revealing disharmony with his spouse, who voted for it. Backward reels the mind, to 1992, when Gov. Clinton explained his opinion of Congress' 1991 authorization of the Gulf War: "I guess I would have voted with the majority if it was a close vote. But I agree with the arguments the minority made."
Such muddiness clarifies: Do voters who are weary of the scary clarity of the current president's certitudes really want to replace them with a recurrence of the hairsplitting evasions that created the adjective "Clintonian"?
About one thing, Hillary Clinton is both clear and opaque: Jefferson is anachronistic. "We can talk all we want about freedom and opportunity, about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but what does all that mean to a mother or father who can't take a sick child to the doctor?" Well, OK, what does "all that" mean to someone stuck in congested traffic? Or annoyed by the price of cable television? What does Mrs. Clinton mean?
John Edwards' health care agenda involves un-Jeffersonian bossiness. "It requires," he says, "that everybody get preventive care. If you are going to be in the system, you can't choose not to go to the doctor for 20 years." In an ad running in Iowa, Edwards brandishes his mailed fist at Congress, to which he vows to say: "If you don't pass universal health care by July of 2009, in six months, I'm going to use my power as president to take your health care away from you."
What power would that be? What power enables presidents to "take" health care from people who have it by statute? This is the Democrats' riposte to the grandiosity of the current president's notion of executive prerogatives?
Edwards might, however, reconsider - he is, after all, a serial apologizer. Of his actions during his six years in the Senate, he says: My vote for the Iraq War? Sorry about that. For the Patriot Act? I don't know what I was thinking. For No Child Left Behind? Oops! For liberalized trade with China? Forgive me. For storing waste in Nevada's Yucca Mountain? I was for it before I was against it.
On the Republican side, Mike Huckabee's candidacy rests on serial non sequiturs: I am a Christian, therefore I am a conservative, therefore whatever I have done or propose to do with "compassionate," meaning enlarged, government is conservatism. And by the way, anything I denote as a "moral" issue is beyond debate other than by the uncaring forces of greed.
His is a moralist's version of the intellectual vanity once ascribed to Oxford's Benjamin Jowett:
My name is Jowett
Of Balliol College;
If I don't know it,
It is not knowledge.
Many Iowans think it would be wise to nominate a candidate who, when the Republicans were asked during a debate to raise their hands if they do not believe in evolution, raised his. But, then, Huckabee believes America can be energy independent in 10 years, so he has peculiar views about more than paleontology.
Huckabee combines pure moralism with incoherent populism: He wants Washington to impose a nationwide ban on smoking in public, show more solicitude for Americans of modest means and impose more protectionism, thereby raising the cost of living for Americans of modest means.
Although Huckabee is considered affable, two subliminal but clear enough premises of his Iowa attack on Mitt Romney are unpleasant: The almost 6 million American Mormons who consider themselves Christians are mistaken about that. And - 55 million non-Christian Americans should take note - America must have a Christian president.
Another pious populist who was annoyed by Darwin - William Jennings Bryan - argued that William Howard Taft, his opponent in the 1908 presidential election, was unfit to be president because he was a Unitarian, a persuasion sometimes defined as the belief that there is at most one God. The electorate chose to run the risk of entrusting the presidency to someone skeptical about the doctrine of the Trinity.
If Huckabee succeeds in derailing Romney's campaign by raising a religious test for presidential eligibility, that will be clarifying: In one particular, America was more enlightened a century ago.
georgewill@ washpost.com
Hi Randy, I'm Gabriela Alegria, I have 15 years old and I'm from Chile, it's very difficult for me to read and write in english, so I ask you that excuse me if I misteke me.
I read your book "To save at home" and I give thanks to God because spoke to my life through that. A long time ago I decided to be a missionary, a doctor missionary, to serve to our God is my motive to exist, and a time ago had forgot the eternal purposes that had for me, now the memory every day. I'm interest a lot of the countries where the Christians are pursued, and I pray by the Middle East because God to inclined my heart toward that place.
Thanks for all.
God bless you ...Gabby!
Thank you for writing about politics,it can be time consuming and a challenge to sort through. I really enjoyed anonymous's comments. This person brought understanding to the issue at hand because he discussed the proper jurisdiction/role of government.
Ron Paul is the only candidate who is adamently opposed to the National ID card, passed by our pro-one world goverment President Bush in 2005. (I voted for him twice and will NOT vote for a one world goverment candidate again.) I'm so pleased that I have someone running who is not part of the establishment; Ron Paul. The National ID card, mandatory by Dec, 2009 is just a precursor to the imbeded microchip(mark of the beast), which some people have already. Hopefully Christians will realize very soon that they don't want big, fat government, which cares for them from cradle to grave and they will vote for Ron Paul.
Thanks Randy, for clearing some of that up for me. I've been having trouble clearing up, in my own mind, what I believe about Huckabee and Paul and what it is that each of them stand for. Though I'm not certain that I share all of your views, I'm grateful that you've taken the time share them. God bless you and your family this Christmas season.
Abe Loper
Randy, I need to start checking your blog first. I am always about to go do the things that i should be doing instead of being on the internet. I love getting sucked into reading your blog. I am so blessed to know you and I love reading this since i know your heart. This is truly you and I appreciate your views. I know you are done with the political stuff but let me tell you that i have directed a family member clearly supporting obama, and boy were their eyes opened and their votes changed. We love you Randy.
This was a transcript from the Glenn Beck show..He is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
Romney's Big Speech
DECEMBER 05, 2007
GLENN BECK PROGRAM
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
GLENN: We need to learn from each other. I'm not here to defend my faith. I'm not hear to defend Romney's faith. I'm not here to defend your faith or tear it apart or anything else. A person's relationship with their God is a deeply personal thing and we need to respect that. We need to respect that in every man, woman and child. We need to respect that in every man that wants to be President. I'm glad Mitt Romney believes in God, but I don't care. So does Mike Huckabee. He's a Baptist. I like that in him. I don't have to become a Baptist if he becomes President, do we? Is he going to make us all become Baptists? Is Mitt Romney going to make us all become Mormon? No. Good! I don't care.
And you know what? Are you going to vote for Mike Huckabee because he's a Baptist? That would be pretty stupid of you, wouldn't it? That would be pretty small minded? Are you going to vote against Mitt Romney because he's a Mormon? Wouldn't that be pretty small minded? It would be just as small minded for you to not vote for Mitt Romney because he's Mormon as it would be for me to vote for him because he's Mormon.
Now the Kennedy comparison. I don't know, you know, I don't know how the media's going to spin this, but Jack Kennedy, I think people remember this Jack Kennedy speech for -- well, it's kind of like the whole Kennedy thing. You are remembering them for, you know, a lot more than he was, a lot more than this speech was. In a nutshell all that JFK said, that he wasn't the Catholic candidate for President; he was the Democratic candidate who also happened to be Catholic. Amen, brother. He didn't go into details. He just said, this is who I am and I'm proud of it. And if I were advising Mitt Romney, I would tell him to say the same thing, not even read the speech. "You know, here's what Jack Kennedy said" and then go up and deliver it.
Critics and detractors of Romney would love to have you believe that because he's a Mormon, he's too weird and spooky to be President and if you believe that, well, you know what, no speech he's going to get is going to change your mind. I get e-mails all the time, avalanches of e-mail: "I've listened to you for years, you are one of the smartest most loved guys. I agree with you on everything. But what, are you completely stupid for the Mormon thing? Oh, my gosh, you've got to run." Do you think the most important thing in my life I didn't investigate? Do you think you actually know something I haven't heard before? Do you think you know something that I haven't investigated myself? Do you think that you've got, like the -- "Oh, no, you've been duped!" Really? A guy who the last thing I wanted to be was a Mormon? Really? I was looking for escape hatches. I was looking for anything. I would have given my right arm for it not to be -- for me to have not found it true. But you know what? I did. You may not. God bless ya. That's great. That's what makes America so great.
How can it be, how can it be that we can be so different? Well, it's pretty easy. God made us all different, and we all find different things. It is in the honest seeking of answers. Unfortunately with everybody's religion, too many people's religion, you get a pack of lies. Isn't the fact that you agree with me on a lot of stuff enough proof that I'm not a weirdo cult member? A recent poll from CNN found that 77% of Americans found Romney's faith wouldn't affect their decision to vote for him. And you know what? I'm proud of us. That doesn't mean you vote for him. That means you have some perspective.
You know, just before he died, I talked to Reverend Jerry Falwell. I had a chance to interview him and ask him. He was a nice man. I think I only spoke to him twice, but he really was a kind and gentle man, and I talked to him on the air and I talked to him off the air about Mormons because I specifically asked him on the air, "What do you think? How important is a candidate's faith?" You know what he said? He said to me on the air, "Glenn, we're electing President, not a Sunday schoolteacher." That's Jerry Falwell. When I asked him off the air about the whole Mormon thing, he said, "I don't agree with the theology but every Mormon I've ever met is a good guy." Isn't that what it should be? The world is in terrible shape these days. The next election may be the most important election of my lifetime and that's only because we're getting in more and more trouble. Every four years we're worse off.
I may say this, that this is the most important election of our lifetime because we haven't corrected the mistakes of the last election and they're bigger. And you know what? In four years I'll probably say to you -- I hope I don't but I'll probably say, this is it, man, this is the most important election of our lifetime. This isn't a popularity contest. You should vote for the man you feel it going to do the best job, has the best solutions to get this great country back on track. Good heavens. Shucks! We're America. We're the United States of America and somehow or another we have allowed ourselves once again to be convinced that we can't fix the problems! We can fix the problems! But not by being small minded.
If I do decide to vote for Mitt Romney, and I don't know if I'm going to. I haven't made up my mind. I'd like to take a little piece of Mitt Romney, a little piece of Giuliani, a little piece of Mike Huckabee and stitch them all together. A big piece of Duncan Hunter, a piece of Tancredo and, yes, even a little piece of Ron Paul. I'd like to be Dr. Frankenstein, stitch my candidate together and say, it's alive! But because I can't do that, and most likely I'd be arrested and it couldn't get any worse -- well, I guess it could. It could be raining. I'll just have to decide who I'm going to vote for. But I can tell you what. Whatever candidate is I end up backing, it won't be because he's a Mormon and it won't be because he's not a Baptist, and I hope people in my audience feel the same way. I want to know a guy's character. I want to know a guy's values. I want to know how smart he is. I want to know how nimble he is and being able to speak the truth and crush lies. If Mitt Romney gets my vote, it's because I find him to be smart, thoughtful, clearheaded thinker on the issues that matter to me. I don't care if Mitt Romney is a Mormon or not a Mormon, and I plan on telling him that, you know, the next great world meeting where we plot the domination of the Earth and preselect the next winner of American Idol, in the basement of our churches. Shhh.
One other (at least) has already said it well. But I want to add my voice, ignored though it will likely be.
The values voters debate was a setup. The people commenting after the debate (one of whom you quoted) were clearly already set on Mike from the beginning as God's annointed candidate.
The question and answer period was structured in a way to prevent any sort of rational discussion by reducing it to yes and no answers.
The easy thing here would be to answer the way you know everyone wants you to in that audience. It would've been so easy for Ron to tell people what they want to hear. Like some of those other men did. Instead he held fast to his principles even though he knew they'd be misinterpreted by people like you.
People who take no time to actually understand the political ramifications of an idea or decision before weighing in on it. Evangelicals are largely political morons. There is zero appreciation for the double-edged sword that is the use of government power. Zero understanding of the law of unintended consequences.
No, we swing that sword for all its worth with no heed to who is going to be hurt by it, including ourselves. Imagine a three year old with a fully automatic handgun. That's the typical evangelical in the political arena.
We have a system of government that separates powers. It does so for a reason - a recognition that man is depraved and cannot be trusted with power. It must be divided and set against itself or it will be abused.
Some of us, like me, Ron, and hundreds of others I now know thanks to Ron's campaign, understand that the national government has a very specific and LIMITED set of powers and responsibilities. Yes Jefferson made that statement, but if you actually bother to read his writings instead of a quote you read on the web somewhere or in someone's email signature you'll find that he CLEARLY did not believe it was the responsibility of the national government to intervene in the life of the individual to accomplish that.
The federal government has that job as a priority in the specific areas that it is responsible for. It is the job of the pastor to shepherd the flock. Not for him to shepherd EVERY flock, but the flock he was given. Likewise the federal government has a responsibility to protect life in its management of our national and international affairs. In part that means not sending our people to die in unjust wars.
If Ron were running for governor and was taking those positions I think we'd have a much more interesting debate. However, the fact is that he was running for president of the United States, and he was dead right on every single one of those questions and everyone else was wrong.
This includes the issue of forcing laws on the Iraqi government. We have no place to impose laws on other nations. Instead we ought to lead by example and encourage that result that we want. I am truly horrified by what happens to Christians in Islamic nations. It's awful. However, it is also being used of God for the benefit of that Church. One of the biggest problems the American church has is that it is not persecuted enough. How about if we follow our constitution and bring this particular problem before God in prayer instead. The utter hypocrisy here amazes me. One of the main reasons most Christians oppose Islam is because of its law and that laws opposition to and attempted suppression of Christianity. (Sadly enough, they'd likely be fine with it otherwise, much like GWB). Then they want to turn around and impose their own law on Islamic nations.
Further, I wholeheartedly agree with you that there are fundamental issues with Islam that many people don't appreciate. However, there is this seeming belief among many that the majority of muslims are consistent, accurate muslims. That somehow the Islamic world is not possessed of the weaknesses that possesses every other world religion.
But that's not the case. There simply aren't that many militant muslims. Or there weren't before we started bombing them regularly. Most people are not even aware of the regular bombing runs we did leading up to 9/11. And of course, we can't possibly give any credence to the idea that might make people angry. Maybe even angry enough to join a militant organization to strike back at the US.
Not when we can look at their religion and find reasons there. Surely that explains everything. Why should I be forced to actually think about cause and effect. Why should we possibly ever possibly entertain the thought that maybe we might need to repent of what our nation has done in the past?
What really gets me is that most of that was Clinton era actions. Christians are even defending HIS policies and their consequences. It's not even typical "republicans can do no wrong."
Our pride is killing us.
If we put a man like Mike in the office, he will continue to expand the size of government. Sure, he's a social conservative - mostly. But that's as far as it goes. He might even lower taxes. But that is meaningless.
This is not a question of whether he can do enough to appear conservative. This is a question of his worldview. Of his ideology. What is his overall approach to government. It's not conservative. Not in any historical or meaningful sense of the word.
Further, he will do nothing to repair the great damage done by President Bush. Speaking specifically of his moves in regard to Martial law, his repealing of the Posse Comitatus act, his willingness to declare US citizens as enemy combatants and the subsequent stripping of their rights, the warrantless searches, or the patriot act. In particular on that last point, the power granted to the federal eforcement arm to write their own search warrants and then prevent you from telling anyone - even your lawyer - about it.
As a result, if he wins, and that's a big if, then in 4 years or 8 years or 16 years when the democrats come to power they will have all of that power and they will employ it in ways that will hurt everyone.
And you will be responsible.
There's so much naivety about how politics works. Separation of church and state is a great idea and one mandated by our constitution. Separation of religion and state is not mandated by the constitution and for good reason: it's not possible. Religion has to do with our answers to ultimate questions like: Where do we come from? And: Why are we here? And: What's the matter with us? And: What's right and wrong? Etc. Everyone is religious, even the die-hard atheist. The public policy we seek to promote is always a reflection of a person's deepest religious beliefs. If this is true, then the most important questions we can ask about a potential political leader are those pertaining to their religious convictions. What we find out about his core beliefs will give us a good indication about where he or she will try to take our nation. For this reason, it's important to know as much as we can about the core beliefs of Romney. To imagine that his Mormonism will play no role in his leadership is frankly, just stupid. His Mormon convictions are not superficial but pervasive to his personality and conduct and we should have every reason to be concerned about that. Rob
Please take the time to read this.
http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin417.htm
"...George W. Bush and Karl Rove have made mincemeat out of the Religious Right. They have shown everyone that once you win the support of the Christian Right with rhetoric, you can get by with just about anything. Christians are horrible at holding Republicans accountable."~Chuck Baldwin
I fear we are seeing history repeat itself with Christians not willing to hold Mike Huckabee accountable.
"By the way, as you read Huckabee's speech [before the CFR], you will find that he is George W. Bush on steroids! This is a man who intends to meddle in the affairs of nations around the world like you can't believe. Talk about entangling alliances: Huckabee intends for our State, Energy, Housing, Education, Justice, Treasury, and Transportation departments to spend untold billions of tax dollars on just about anything and everything, including schools, medical facilities, roads, sewage treatment, water filtration, electricity, and legal and banking systems in countries all over the globe. And that is exactly the kind of man the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) wants in Washington."`Chuck Baldwin
Just exactly what kind of a country is it that Christians think they will be leaving their children and grandchildren if Mike Huckabee gets elected?
Again, please take the time go to the above link and read the article. You may not like what you read at first, but sometimes the truth has to hurt before it sinks in.
I hope you understand that the reason why "the terrorists" hate us so much is because we've tampered with their lands since the end of WWI and Balfour. If all you pathetic conservatives could wake up and actually see the history of these nations - what has happened in Palestine, what happened in Lebanon, what happened in Iraq and all the other places in the Middle East - you would understand what really fuels their hatred. Go search on the internet for the reasons why Britain and France mandated all those areas in the first place and then keep reading until you reach 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq. The motives for the terrorist attacks will be pretty clear to you. And invading their countries to "bring democracy into the Middle East" isn't going to make them like us. In fact, any more invasions and wars would only add to their reasons to want to kill us. Think about it. There was no al-Qa'ida in Iraq under Saddam Hussein; now the only reason we have left to stay there is al-Qa'ida, because with Saddam gone they all came in to fight us.
Oh, and I'm assuming you and/or your family members are still driving a car and using up oil. Yes, oil bought from the corrupt Gulf monarchies like Saudi and the UAE. If you really cared so much about the Christians in the Arab World you would have switched to bicycling a long time ago. Hey, did you know we're still buying oil from Iran, the exact same country the zionazis in our government are about to bomb? And speaking of Arab Christians, did you know that your slave state Israel actually persecutes Christian Palestinians in the occupied territories and prevents them from seeing their holy places? And what about all those Christian Lebanese who were murdered by Israeli bombs and guns back in summer '06? You religious hypocrites say you want to help Christians in the Middle East and then you do a 180 and shout things like "we must support Israel no matter what" and keep buying gas from the oil monarchies which persecute more groups of people than you can imagine.
Oh, and another thing, all of you better stop hiding behind the abortion issue as if it's the only reason to cast a vote. Wake up and smell reality. See what our country is really doing in the world and has been doing for over a century. When you think how sad it is when a woman aborts her baby, think about all those people who have died because of American foreign policy. Enough said!
Here's a great article on Morality in Politics, Mike Huckabee and The Values Voter Debate. Please read it.
http://buriedtreasurebooks.com/weblog/?p=2259
Here's a good quote from it.
"Without an opportunity to explain his position on those detailed questions, Ron Paul consistently refused to go with the crowd’s sympathies for some tough situations when questioners asked the candidates to agree that they would use the power of their office to promote causes which are the hot button issues of the Christian conservatives. Even though I agree with the righteousness of the causes addressed, I do not agree with the idea of wielding presidential power in an unconstitutional way to achieve those good ends."
Thanks for the post, Mr. Alcorn!
Regarding the war on terror, I agree that there are ideological and theological differences between "Muslims" and "Christians" that create conflict, but I do agree with Ron Paul that our interventionism overseas creates more tension and increases our chances of attack. Even if the War on Terror was purely a "theological war", is it just to invade a nation (Iraq) that was not threatening us and kill people of a religion simply because of their faith and the assumption that they are "terrorists"? When did Jesus advocate that? If anything, hasty and unjust actions like the Iraq War resemble the Crusades and provoke the true terrorists even more.
As far as Ron Paul's views regarding life (conception and beyond), it's not that he doesn't want it protected. It's that he doesn't believe that it is the responsibility of the Federal Government. I see validity for the argument of a Constitutional Amendment to protect life, but if the same objective can be accomplished through the states or even the private sector (as it was before Roe v. Wade -- regarding abortion), than I will still support Ron Paul.
Check out my blog at www.theronpaulrevolution.blogspot.com.
Thanks for posting about politics, Mr. Alcorn! It's a joy to see Americans be involved in their government!!!
May God richly bless you!
"I could never vote for a candidate who seems to put the Constitution over the Scriptures." - Stephen Stallard
Values continuum:
Scriptures => Constitution => politics
Steve, will you vote for a candidate that would seem to put "political expediency" over the Constitution? If you answer that no (like any truly thinking Christian would), then you have to ask: could even a professing Christian be counted on to stand on Scripture if he puts "political expediency" before the Constitution? hmmmmmmm.
The Christian right (and other fed up conservatives) are supporting
Mike Huckabee, but the right’s pundits are not flocking to support
him, and many of them are actually trying to derail him. Case in point:
Rush's Hit-Piece on Huckabee (stick with it, audio of Rush)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu-ZSSaZELM
Something is very very very very wrong with this picture. Bottom line:
The best candidate for the Republican nomination is Huckabee.
Post a Comment