Huckabee's statement brings to mind the neo-puritans and reconstructionists who would like to have government once again carry out the church's bidding when it comes to punishing lawbreakers and heretics. Sadly, many who would be branded heretics are Christians who don't toe the party line. It's disturbing.
It's something when the Hollywood actor gets it right and the Baptist preacher gets it so very wrong.
With regard to Huckabee's repeated lies - do you ever notice how the religious right comes down so hard on homosexuality and other 'moral' issues as if they were the unforgivable sins, and yet lying and deceit are never looked at in the same light? 'Our' sins aren't as bad as 'their' sins mentality. And evangelicals continue to support him like it's no big deal. It's no wonder the religious right is mocked and looked down upon.
My initial reaction to the latest letter supporting Huckabee from HSLDA PAC was to withdraw my membership [from HSLDA]...
But then I took a deep breath and realized everyone is entitled to their opinion.
I just find it so unfortunate that a respected organization like HSLDA who is so meticulous when addressing homeschool issues both nationally and internationally that they would be so careless with a "blind-eye" response to the issues surrounding Mike Huckabee. Avoiding the issues and regurgitating the same old political propaganda video just seems so...how should I say it?...wimpy?
Personally, I have not received a response from HSLDA to my inquiry regarding the PAC's endorsement. I wish their latest letter demonstrated a little more awareness, fortitude and diligence in the issues addressed on this blog and others.
Thank you Spunky for shining the light on the truth, while the HSLDA PAC (at least at the present time) hides in the shadows.
HSLDA-PAC website said, "Questions have arisen regarding Governor Huckabee’s commitment to homeschooling. HSLDA-PAC is confident that Governor Huckabee is a strong supporter of home education, and we stand by our endorsement."
What is interesting is that they reaffirm their confidence in Huckabee's support for home education but don't say what that confidence is based upon. What that tells me is that they are relying our complete trust in their assessment of Huckabee. That's not a good sign.
HSLDA tells us the Clinton years were bad and that they along with another group approached Huckabee about changing the law which he did. They then say the following, "Only two years later, however, during the 1999 legislative session, two bad bills were introduced to impose restrictions on the homeschoolers. There was a great deal of momentum to get these bills through. "
What's troubling here is that they have an opportunity to provide a reason why these bills were introduced but don't give it. Huckabee has provided a reason for these bills, it was his own education reform bill of 1998 that was the culprit. "With the implementation and success of the Smart Start program some legislators wanted to reverse what we had done for homeschoolers in 1997 and put in place very severe restrictions." (See Post #2 for link)
Why would a ed. reform bill not even directly related to homeschooling be the catalyst for the 1999 bill? Was there a compromise with Democrats the year before to get his ed reform bill passed that required him to implement some restrictions on homeschoolers? Does Huckabee just attempt to appease whoever approaches him? First the homeschoolers then the anti-homeschoolers? We'll probably never know for sure. But I find it highly interesting that Huckabee didn't mention abuse or a kid with a cigarette as the catalyst for the 1999 law as many people have emailed and told me, but his education reform bill of 1998.
Unfortunately, HSLDA is willing to believe Huckabee and not investigate this further. That's unfortunate, given that their first duty is to defend homeschoolers, not Mike Huckabee. Or at least that was true of the HSLDA of old.
Denise, I just watched the video you posted "Let me get this right". Wow. Unbelievable! I already posted it on my facebook account and will put it on my blog shortly. Thanks for the link.
I'm a bit surprised that you are still blogging anti-Huckabee, but then again...
As far as you quoting the article on Huckabee written at the evangelical outpost:
"A large section of the GOP has made it quite clear that they will do whatever it takes to ensure that the hillbilly preacher doesn't win the nomination. Many of them--and we all know who they are--will lie about his record and his positions in order to put an end to his campaign."
It is NOT negative. He is talking about Romney (lying about Huckabee's record, etc).
Carter's article is subject to interpretation, I suppose. Different people can read the same thing and come away with differing perspectives. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
As far as still blogging, there's a lot at stake in the next election regarding homeschooling and education policy. You might want to read my top post. At the bottom I explain why I'm still writing about Huckabee.
http://spunkyhomeschool.blogspot...o-
betrayal.html
I read your top post...actually, I've read most, if not ALL of your recent political posts beginning with Huckabee. 
I LOVE how much research you've done, Spunky. I am very thankful for that! I just don't understand why your blog has become so anti-Huckabee and anti-HSLDA.
If only we had as much "hands on" (homeschooling legislation) experience to draw from each of the other candidates to rightly judge them by on THIS issue...hmm...guess we'll just have to "trust" their "words" more than their "actions", huh? Begs the question as to how they would have ruled under the same situation, right?
I am looking at where each candidate stands on major issues (homeschooling is a big issue), what I BELIEVE in, and prioritize them.
I'm glad to hear that you supported Thompson. He is one of my back-up candidates. Thompson to Ron Paul, though, seems like a drastic change.
As far as Ron Paul supporters, I ask: "Do you really believe in bringing ALL of our military back home?...really...ALL of them?...settling disputes with "words" over "action"...well...OK. If you BELIEVE in that, then you have YOUR candidate."
Signed,
Leinani
Homeschooling mom and veteran
I returned to blogging for one purpose, to talk about Huckabee and homeschooling because of the HSLDA endorsment and all the media attention being given to that aspect. I hadn't planned on it going beyond the intitial four posts that are the "spine" of my research on Huckabee. But when someone left a comment telling me about Ned Ryun, the former director of HSLDA-PAC, and what he had to say, I didn't feel I could just ignore that information. Since then new information keeps surfacing. If it is perceived as anti-Huckabee or anti-HSLDA it's because that's the nature of the information.
I as much as anyone else would like to support a Christian conservative candidate. But I'm not going to turn a blind eye to obvious information simply because it goes against who I'd like to support. I want to know the truth about Mike Huckabee. He could be our nation's next president. How he governed in Arkansas is important because it will help understand what he'll do if elected.
Since my posts have been up, I have not received any credible evidence that refutes what I've found. And if this IS true, I don't want a president who compromises our freedom and caves into democrat pressure.
I don't plan on returning to blogging full-time, but I do plan on finishing what I started. And for now that is helping homeschoolers understand what's at stake in the next election and how Mike Huckabee, a man many are supporting, is not all he claims to be.
"If only we had as much "hands on" (homeschooling legislation) experience to draw from each of the other candidates to rightly judge them by on THIS issue...hmm...guess we'll just have to "trust" their "words" more than their "actions", huh? Begs the question as to how they would have ruled under the same situation, right? "
Freedom and parental rights are worth fighting for.
I don't pretend to have legislative experience, but a similar bill was introduced here in Michigan and I do have some experience to support that going on record and fighting FOR a parents rights will bear some fruit.
A bill was introduced in the Michigan legislature about 6 years ago similar to what was introduced in Arkansas. The legislature was seeking to increase requirements on homeschoolers through testing and other requirements for the same reasons as it appears this bill was introduced. One of the sponsors of the bill is NOT a homeschool proponent at all. He is very atagonistic and would like to see increases to prevent possible abuses. Many democrats were supporting this bill and wanted to see it passed.
The sponsor of the bill and I debated the point for about 45 minutes on WJR the largest conservative talk radio show in the Detroit area. My argument was based on the basic premise that the parent NOT the state has the compelling or highest interest of the child. The legislator was forced into admitting that any regulation denied that fact and gave the state the compelling interest. The very next day this legislator pulled the bill. NO compromise was necessary, why? Because when you're up fighting against the freedoms provided by our Constitution their is NO winning argument. I
The natural rights of the parents to educate their children is a fundamental right. There are those within our government who would like to deny that right through increased regulation and testing.
Huckabee’s compromise in the area of homeschooling was a short term solution to prevent a more strigent bill from passing.
Huckabee’s signature makes him complicit in a compromise that cemented in the minds of the Democrats and the people of Arkansas that the state has the compelling interest and the authority to deny parents their natural right to direct the education of their children. This inspite of a state Constitution which says that men are free and independent to pursue their own happiness. Huckabee could have gone on record defending freedom and at least NOT signing the compromise would have shown that, on principle, he opposes limiting our freedom. We find no such record.
I don't have to simply trust Huckabee's words in this election, I have his actions and his LACK of words while governor to look at.
If Huckabee can't explain to a Democrat legilsators how this bill violates the freedom of parents, then what good is a leader who believes in them?
Edited By Siteowner
Leinani,
"Do you really believe in bringing ALL of our military back home?"
I support candidates based on the principles they hold, profess and act upon. When considering the current slate of Republican candidates for President, Ron Paul is the only one at this time that I can determine to embrace biblical and constitutional principles (regardless of his position on the war - more on that later). I am not claiming that he is perfect, but when considering biblical and constitutional principles, he is the one who exemplifies them the most and has for the majority of his political career (I can't speak to his ENTIRE career because I haven't followed him for that long).
When I look at:
1. Fear God and love Jesus
2. Trustworthy
3. Integrity
4. Sanctity of life
5. Parental rights
6. Education
7. Personal property rights
8. Monetary policy
9. Right to bear arms
10. Foreign policy
11. Limited government
12. American sovereignty
Ron Paul scores higher in every one of these areas than any of the other candidates from what I have been able to determine.
With regards to the his position on the war in Iraq...when I consider the whole of God's word I see exhortations to avoid debt; that unequal weights and measures are an abomination to the Lord; that greed is evil; that theft is wrong; that subjecting others to my authority (instead of acknowledging the authority of Jesus Christ) is evil; that doing unto others differently than I would want them to do to me is wrong, etc. When considering the war in Iraq (including the actions, purpose and results of the war), I see biblical principles being violated in the name of a "war on terror" (take the war to the islamofascist's soil so we don't have to fight them on ours).
If we consider Daniel, Hanania, Mishael and Azariah in the book of Daniel, they refused to compromise the commands of God even if it meant death by fire or by being torn limb by limb by a lion. I don't see a preemptive war policy to be biblical or constitutional. I do see a non-interventionist policy to be more in line with biblical and constitutional principles. Ron Paul's desire may or may not be the absolute best action or alternative, but it is clearly based on more sound biblical and constitutional principles than the current policy of our government...which every other Republican candidate happens to support.
So all in all, when considering biblical and constitutional principles in many different areas, Ron Paul is the candidate I am choosing.
Well said.
Leinani,
I wanted to comment on your concluding statement:
"settling disputes with "words" over "action"...well...OK. If you BELIEVE in that, then you have YOUR candidate."
So am I getting this right? You propose action over words in a "dispute"? What is your home like? In our home we daily discourage our children from settling disputes with "actions". I'm sorry to sound so incredulous, but I just can't fathom what our homes, country, or world would be like if everyone thought that every dispute should be settled with "actions" instead of "words". I understand that you are speaking of military and warfare. So you propose that it is better to be involved in warfare where thousands of lives will be lost as opposed to trying to talk it out?
I actually don't think that you really believe what you wrote. Perhaps you just did not communicate effectively? It is clear that that you do not like the stand of those who support Ron Paul. Perhaps you could better articulate why you support the U.S. preemptive war strategy and our occupation of several hundred countries around the world.
I don't particularly like Huckabee's stance on the Constitution, either, but it lines up perfectly with what HSLDA is looking toward. He is speaking about the marriage amendment which will draw the support of many. In fact, I know other commenters on this blog have questioned how some of the other candidates could even be considered by someone who claims to be evangelical Christian based on this issue.
This issue has been billed as one of the two main issues threatening America (alongside abortion) and a lot of people will side with Huckabee on these two issues alone, regardless of what he thinks on other issues.
btw, I think the Christian/Mormon thing has been way overplayed by the media. They make us out to be completely intolerant of any other faith, but I'm yet to meet anyone who had more than passing thoughts regarding Romney on religious issues. Meaning they know, they'd be more comfortable if he weren't, but it isn't a vote deciding factor.
Good questions Kimberly.
BTW, I hear that the woman who was "Jane Roe" in Roe-vs-Wade is supposed to come out for Ron Paul tomorrow. Should be interesting.
Spunky,
I don’t have ANY experience in politics or debate. But, I seemed to have opened a can of worms and I am humbly willing to sort them out. J Honestly, I feel really out of place commenting here, but I’ll follow up to your reply from my heart…
I’m sooo glad you returned to blogging, too. I never read your blog before your Huckabee posts. I LOVE all this research you’ve done! And now I know how you’ve made a good name for yourself, as described by another commenter, “in picking the meat off of bones” (or something like that).
When I previously commented: “I just don't understand why your blog has become so anti-Huckabee and anti-HSLDA“, I meant that since you are strongly against Huckabee for your own personal reasons, it is being transferred into your research sources and output. There are all sorts of things we can agree and disagree with on ALL the candidates. I have presented facts on my blog about Huckabee that I may not agree with; however, they are not deal breakers for me over certain other issues. But, everyone is to choose for themselves, knowing as many of the facts as possible. And I am thankful for the research you have contributed.
When I wrote: “If only we had as much "hands on" (homeschooling legislation) experience to draw from each of the other candidates to rightly judge them by on THIS issue...hmm...guess we'll just have to "trust" their "words" more than their "actions", huh? Begs the question as to how they would have ruled under the same situation, right?”
I was talking about the other presidential candidates, not you. Sorry for the misunderstanding. For example: Thompson…??? Let me re-define that: “If only we had as much “hands-on” home schooling legislation experience to draw from each of the other presidential candidates - like Thompson or McCain, to rightly judge each of the candidates by on THIS one issue…hmmm…guess we’ll just have to “trust” the other presidential candidates “words” more than their “actions”, huh? Begs the question as to how each of them would have ruled under the same situation, right?”
There’s no debate that Ron Paul’s vision for education is better than Huckabee’s. I strongly favor Ron Paul’s vision on education, but STRONGLY oppose his position on foreign policy and national security. And the latter rules in priority…for ME…in choosing a candidate.
I absolutely BELIEVE in fighting for parental freedom to educate our own children. Great job in fighting for homeschooling in Michigan! I am blessed to live in a state with one of our country's BEST homeschooling laws. That was one of the major determinants in us moving here 16 months ago.
You wrote: "Huckabee’s compromise in the area of homeschooling was a short term solution to prevent a more stringent bill from passing."
From what I’ve researched, Huckabee was working WITH what the “homeschoolers” were advocating in his state at the time, whatever the homeschoolers (or r
Brian,
I agree with everything you stated you believe in, EXCEPT that Ron Paul fits those “perfectly“.
My choice candidate should:
#1 Uphold the Bible as being the source of absolute Truth.
#2 Have the ability to publicly and boldly confess Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Doing so holds one accountable to living out their faith. A bold Christian lives under a much higher level of scrutinization than the one who hides in the closet and discusses his faith “discreetly”, or even the one who “doesn‘t know any better“ (an atheist, etc).
#2 Be PRO-life and PRO-family. I am for a constitutional amendment to reflect that life is precious and that covenant marriages are the bedrock of all family units and pro-creation. We have learned both in the Word of God and the history of man that any compromise in these two areas have lead to moral depravity and the destruction of a city, state, nation, and world. We have seen how a compromise in this area has allowed governors to pass laws NOT based on absolute Truth, such as this example in California: http://savecalifornia.com/
getact...nalysisinfo.php (I also blogged on it here: http://www.heartofwisdom.com/PUR...ENSIBLE/?p=316)
#3 National Security/Foreign Policy
I have several non-American “cultural” ties (being French, Filipino and Hawaiian), but I LOVE my country. My husband and I were both serving in the armed forces over 10 years ago to protect our freedoms and defend our country. As far as you describing Ron Paul’s positions on Iraq…great food for thought. These are all great biblical stances…but, we are already at war. I don’t believe in allowing the jihad to continue to terrorize the world, even if it is a never-ending battle. Retreating will not appease their ideology or lessen their hatred for us. Now is NOT the time to withdraw.
See…this is the thing…not only do I think Ron Paul doesn’t have “the best action or alternative“, I don’t think he has it right at all in this area. And this is what repulses my husband and I toward supporting him.
We can agree to disagree, knowing that this one area divides us. J
#4 Education and Parental Rights
From Huckabee’s words and actions, I believe he is FOR home schooling and FOR parental rights; HOWEVER, I’m not afraid to admit that I don’t think he has it ALL right in this area.
Curious… “that unequal weights and measures are an abomination to the Lord”…so does that support “Free Markets”?
Thank you for your insight!
Kimberly,
Ok…I guess this could get really long…J
It’s not that I don’t like the stand of Ron Paul “supporters“, I just can NOT support Ron Paul himself, based on what “he” believes. Each supporter has their own reasons for supporting or opposing a candidate. Although I don’t agree with Ron Paul’s stand on several issues, his stand on National Security and Foreign Policy, IS the deal breaker for me NOT to support him.
Pre-emptive war…well, despite actions pre- and post- 9/11, America has indeed been pre-meditatedly and purposefully been attacked and we are now at war. Some think that war is never good, usually bad, but is sometimes necessary and others will argue that war IS good when it defeats evil.
I am not an expert in military intelligence, but since I also hold some of Ron Paul’s skepticism in this area, let's just say that indeed "The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information” (as is taught through CATO Institute and the Independent Institute)…Ron Paul still admits that "The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars."
He is right, we have a lot at stake...and we are hated by the jihad even more than before…and NOW is the time to withdraw??? As if our withdrawal will appease or weaken their ideology and strategy??? Rationalize with them???
In response to your comment of me writing: "settling disputes with ‘words‘ over ‘action‘...well...OK. If you BELIEVE in that, then you have YOUR candidate."
You are right, I was talking specifically about running the military, not the home. There is a time for war and a time for peace. Also, in the home, there is also a time for “words” AND a time for “action“. How long do you “talk” with rebellious children? I think there IS a time for, what has been coined, “tough love“. But, just as the Word of God teaches, there is a time to embrace a prodigal child when they are repentant (in their actions, not just words). I agree with this following analogy:
“War is like chemotherapy. The good and innocent cells are going to be killed along with the bad. But where there is a cancer that threatens to snuff out life, what is one to do but fight back?
Hardly anyone would argue that a war of self-defense is immoral. On the contrary, those who would sit idly by while their homes and families are threatened by a murderous aggressor are contemptible and guilty of moral cowardice. Pacifism in the face of an evil onslaught, far from upholding the value of human existence, demonstrates utter contempt for human life…Life is of no value unless it is worth being defended…To this very legitimate question (Can a pre-emptive war be a moral enterprise?) I respond that the most moral of wars are not even those fought in self-defense, but
rather those which are fought to defeat tyranny and genocide. If a war of self-defense demonstrates an appreciation of our own lives, a war to defend our neighbor's existence manifests an appreciation for all life.” RABBI SHMULEY BOTEACH in the Jerusalem Post
Just this Sunday, we were teaching 3 year olds from 2 Samuel 5, where David becomes king of Israel. I wasn’t thinking of pre-emptive war policies at the time, but looking back, there’s something to consider. David took the stronghold of Zion (verse 7) and the LORD God of hosts was with him (verse 10).
See, this is where we disagree. And I am OK agreeing to disagree with you on this one area. I don’t take it personal.
Leinani, Thanks for your comments. I appreciate the clarification. Let me just clarify a few things as well,
You said, "I meant that since you are strongly against Huckabee for your own personal reasons,"
If you go back and reread my first post you will see that I began my research on Huckabee and homeschooling hoping to find a reason to like him. I was NOT against Hucakbee, I had concerns but I had not yet ruled him out. I went to HSLDA's website looking at their reasons for supporting him. I was surprised by what I saw. And did some more digging. Then when I read One Mom's blog (see post #2) and more of the pieces began to fall into place. Researching further I ran across Dr. Simon and others within Arkansas who had concerns about Huckabee which supported what I had found out. I then went to those who supported him and talked with them. I talked to HSLDA and asked them about what I found out. They didn't refute anything I said. So then I posted it hoping that others might be able to illuminate this issue. No one came forward with anything substantive to refute my research. The video from Huckabee's campaign was surprising because the homeschoolers were applauding Huckabee for paying for the test that the state manates. A friend to homeschoolers would work to eliminate the test NOT PAY for it. As I said in one of my comments quoting Huckabee, when the state pays for something they gain control. Huckabee gained control with the legislation paying for testing and homeschoolers LOST it. This is not a positive for Huckabee but yet that was the "spin" they gave it.
"From what I’ve researched, Huckabee was working WITH what the “homeschoolers” were advocating in his state at the time,"
He was working with SOME of the homeschoolers. HSLDA opposed this legislation and it appears from Jim Holt in my post from this week, so did other homeschoolers. He was working with homeschoolers AND education beauracrats at the same time. The ed. reformers wanted tighter restrictions and he worked with some homeschoolers and managed to convince them this was what they should do.
This legislation represents Huckabee's way of governing - compromise to avoid confrontation. Rather than confront intrusive legislation that restricted freedom, he caved. Those aren't just my words from my research, but those of homeschoolers like legislator Jim Holt who was involved at the time.
Leinani,
Thanks for your clarification. We are in complete agreement as far as, there is a time for war and a time for peace, etc. I am not a pacifist!
Our disagreement, as I understand it, is specifically what should we do with the Iraq war and when is war justifiable. I can respect your positions. I am not an expert on any of this, but I would like to try to state my position as best as I can.
1). We entered the Iraq war unlawfully. Congress did not declare war, nor define its objectives, as prescribed by our constitution. If we had a candidate proposing to have congress declare war and define its objectives, this would be a whole different discussion. As it is, Ron Paul is the only candidate who is trying to obey the law of our land. All other candidates are just ignoring it.
I agree that we have made things worse by going into Iraq. Perhaps that is because we violated our own laws and God does not bless lawlessness. I think the answer is to repent and pull out, to not spend more American lives in a war that we should not have entered in the first place. As I said, I'm not an expert. I just think that when we are doing the wrong thing, we shouldn't keep doing it and hope that the results will get better. I think that we should stop and do the right thing. There will always be consequences for not obeying the law. If we continue to disregard our law, I believe we can only assume that those consequences will become more severe.
2). I support military action against those who attacked us on 9/11, but that was not Iraq.
3). My opinion is that war is only justifiable when it is an act of self (national) defense. I do not believe that we have a responsibility to be sure that there is no injustice or oppression in the world, as the quote you gave from the Rabbi seems to imply. If that was our responsibility then we should be involved militarily in China, most of the middle east, most of Africa, etc. all of the countries where people are oppressed and killed by their governments. Also, other countries would be morally responsible to invade the U.S. to stop the atrocity of the millions of unborn who are murdered each year. We must have a standard. I believe that the U.S. is responsible for protecting her citizens, China hers, etc.
As I said at the beginning. I'm not trying to convince you. I just wanted to state my opinion. Thanks!
Leinani,
I understand where you are coming from and you are correct, we disagree and that is ok.
A couple of things I want to clear up also:
You commented "EXCEPT that Ron Paul fits those “perfectly“." I actually said the exact opposite..."I am not claiming that he is perfect".
"#1 Uphold the Bible as being the source of absolute Truth." - Which I think you will find that Ron Paul lives and believes also.
"#2 Have the ability to publicly and boldly confess Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior." - I recognize that this is a desire that you personally might carry, but I don't believe it is biblical in the context that you carry it. We are to be able to give a reason when asked for the hope that is within us with meekness and fear (1 Pe 3:15), but to use that hope for personal gain goes against the character of God. God does not share his glory with anyone. In a political campaign, what is the point of proclaiming Christ as one's Lord and Savior? Do we know for certain that it is to honor God, or is it being used as a means to align one's self with a certain base of voters? Or to define a base of values for those observing the campaign process? I don't know for sure the motivation of every candidate, but it has been fairly obvious that some have used their "faith" for their own political purposes.
"#2 Be PRO-life and PRO-family." - Ron Paul is both of these (and then some), he just happens to believe in a different way of dealing with these issues. I happen to agree with him and recognize that you disagree, BUT, we should not claim that Ron Paul is NOT PRO-life and PRO-family and Huckabee IS. They are both PRO-life and PRO-family, they just disagree on how this is to manifested in government.
"#3 National Security/Foreign Policy" - Yes, we disagree and my only thought is that I am accepting one set of information and you are accepting another (the reason why US soldiers are fighting in Iraq). We just happen to believe 2 totally different realities. You might take a look at http://www.amconmag.com/2005_07_...18/
article.html.
You asked, “that unequal weights and measures are an abomination to the Lord”…so does that support “Free Markets”?
Yes, I would say that it supports free markets, however, more importantly it requires honest money for free trade. Neither Mike Huckabee, nor any other candidate (other than Ron Paul), has a clear understanding of honest money. They have not addressed the issue and are unwilling to do so. Ron Paul is a student of monetary and economic policy and understands the situation our nation is in both from a biblical perspective and a constitutional perspective.
And finally, PLEASE, I do recognize that we have 2 different perspectives and like Kimberly, I wanted to be sure we were disagreeing correctly 
Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior and we serve him.
Spunky,
Oops…I didn’t know that my reply above was truncated.
Continuing with… From what I’ve researched, Huckabee was working WITH what the “homeschoolers” were advocating in his state at the time, whatever the homeschoolers (or representative) found MOST favorable in combating the public school lobbyists.
Who is ultimately responsible for protecting our freedoms? Homeschoolers (nudging myself) need to arise within our own states and defend OUR freedom and independence to pursue OUR own happiness. (We all know that unity is another issue.) And yes, elect the officials that BEST represent our OVERALL values.
Let’s just say…a homeschooling parent, as knowledgeable and as skilled in debate as you are, was in Arkansas in 1999 or before…then perhaps the public school lobbyist's would have withdrawn their interest in government-controlled education??? Huckabee chose the “lesser of the 2 evils“, so to speak. Bless you that you were equipped to fight the battle in Michigan and you received favor. But, your actions in Michigan did not necessarily represent your governor’s way of legislating and vice versa.
(Please don‘t read any of this as being sarcastic - I am writing with a serious tone. Just had to clarify this as I am still learning how to communicate my tone in the “written” world.)
"This legislation represents Huckabee's way of governing - compromise to avoid confrontation."
Again, attacking Huckabee's character with your own personal opinion. We can each make up our own minds about how we feel about his way of governing, right? :0) It was evident to me, when I first learned of Huckabee starting the Smart Step programs that I didn’t agree with him 100%. Huckabee does support the public school system. And I don’t agree with OBE methods, the IBO, national testing, and the rest that gives government control over the education of our children. But, Huckabee’s words and his actions have at least shown that he is for home schooling and for parental rights to home school when he was both Lt. Governor and Governor, not against it, even if he doesn‘t have it ALL right. And OVERALL that’s why he’s a better candidate for me, even more so with Thompson out of the race.
From what you’ve written, I understand that you don’t agree that a “short term solution” is better than going back to the pre-1997 laws. But, if Huckabee would have went down on record of defending our “freedoms”, by not signing the “compromise” as you propose, and home schoolers would have lost more or all privileges of home schooling , then don’t you think he would have been badgered for that, too? (I don’t know the details of the opposition.)
Oh! And BTW I wanted to do a search on Jim Holt, but there was no search tool on your blog. I know he’s in your recent post, but I thought I read about him in one of your past posts, too.
Kimberly,
You wrote: "We entered the Iraq war unlawfully." Can you tell me what part of the constitution specifically addresses this? Please correct me if I’m wrong, but this is my understanding of preemptive vs. preventive war:
Preemptive war is waged in an attempt to repel or defeat a perceived inevitable offensive or invasion, or to gain a strategic advantage in an impending (allegedly unavoidable) war.
Preventive war is war launched in anticipation of a future loss of security or strategic advantage. The label is intended to distinguish it from preemptive war, or anticipatory self-defense. Preventive war is only claimed to prevent a hypothetical attack which might occur in the future; for example, a war launched to prevent an adversary acquiring more powerful weapons. In international law, preventive war has no recognized status as distinct from a war of aggression.
From what you wrote, it seems that you do support preemptive war and are against preventive war, right?
But, it is my understanding that preemptive vs. preventive war is NOT black and white. In addition to many other things, “imminence" and "whether or not the federal government, both executive and legislative branches together, possess the power to engage in preemptive war under our Constitution", is highly debatable among those who are "experts" in constitutional law, which again, I am not. Unfortunately, I cannot debate this.
For the things we are doing unbiblical, we should repent. But, there are some things I believe we are doing right and NOW is not the time to pull out from everywhere as Ron Paul suggests. I understand what you are saying as far as policing the rest of the world. I wish things were more black and white in this area, too. The rest of the rabbi’s analogy made me think a bit more on this (I can‘t post it all here, but if you’re
interested, you can read the rest of it at http://www.freerepublic.com/focu...ws/774976/
posts
):
“LET US imagine for a moment that Hitler abided by the agreement he forged with Neville Chamberlain in Munich in September 1938, satisfied himself with the Sudetenland and did not later infamously march into the rest of Czechoslovakia or invade Poland. Let us further imagine, therefore, that WWII did not break out - but that Hitler initiated the Final Solution within his own borders, gassing all the Jews and Gypsies in his realm.
Would the Allies have launched a war against him? Or would the European nations have simply practiced the old Bob Dylan line, "close their eyes and pretend that they just don't see"?
Would the nations of the world have watched in silence as Hitler killed Jews in his domain?
Whatever the answer to that hypothetical question may be (although an indication of probable inaction may be surmised from the lack of a military threat to Hitler after the passing of his Nuremberg Laws and the pogrom of Kristallnacht), what is certain is that now that the world has witnessed one Hitler, we must never allow another to grow in his shadow.”
The rabbi goes on to discuss Saddam Hussein and Hussein’s cousin. It gets a bit graphic, but I think it’s worth reading.
Again, I stress that our withdrawal will not appease or weaken the jihadist ideology or strategy. I pray for a God-fearing leader, who’s goal is NOT to pull our troops out of every country, contrary to what Ron Paul suggests, but to work towards it. There is a time for war and a time for peace. Unfortunately, we are not at peace.
We have been forewarned that in the last days “you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of sorrows.” Matthew 24:6-8
I don’t know when the "last days" are, I feel that you and I both share sorrow about these matters in the now. But…God has given us hope in revealing the victory we will share with him in the end.
I understand that you are not trying to convince me. :0) In the same, I am just stating where I stand on these issues and why we are in disagreement.
Leilani, " "This legislation represents Huckabee's way of governing - compromise to avoid confrontation.
Again, attacking Huckabee's character with your own personal opinion."
(Spunky says) Yes, it is my opinion, but this is not an attack on his character but a critical analysis of his governing style. Lots of politicians use this strategy. I don't happen to agree with it. But it doesn't signify an attack on his character just his but a political philosophy. If I said "This legislation represents Huckabee's LAZY way of governing - compromise to avoid confrontation." I would be attacking his character and his governing philosophy.
This same political strategy came out when he talked about the Bush veto of the SCHIP. When asked about the veto in a debate and if he would have done the same thing, he said, he wouldn't have let things get that far and that the "political loss would be enormous." That's the philosphy I'm talking about. He would not have vetoed the SCHIP becauses the "political loss would be enormous." That's a second example of compromising to avoid confronting. I'm glad Bush vetoed a bad bill, despite the political fall out.
A third was when Huckabee asked for a tax increase without requiring a cut in spending. (The famous You Tube) Asking for a tax increase was the easiest political strategy to avoid confronting the Democrats in the legislature.
"But, if Huckabee would have went down on record of defending our “freedoms”, by not signing the “compromise” as you propose, and home schoolers would have lost more or all privileges of home schooling , then don’t you think he would have been badgered for that, too? (I don’t know the details of the opposition.)"
No, not signing the bill would have let the "compromise" pass in five day, but he would have gone on record as saying that he opposed it on principle. Nothing would be different for homeschoolers, but a lot would have been different for Huckabee. By SIGNING it rather than letting it pass without his signature he was complicit in adding restrictions to homeschoolers. He signature demonstrates that he is okay with restricting parental freedoms where the state no jurisdiction to do so and where the Arkansas Constitution declares that men and women are FREE to pursue their own happiness.
A veto would have signaled stronger opposition and provided another hurdle to passage as well. So he had options. It would have required a simple majority to over ride, but again at least he would have gone on record as opposing the state interfence in the rights of the parent.
I have not mentioned Jim Holt before the post above. I also did a search of the comments and it doesn't appear he was mentioned there. the search tool is on the Blogger tool bar at the upper left hand corner of the screen.
Leinani,
I have been having difficulty viewing the comments. Sometimes I can view them, but often I can't.
In Article 1, Section 8 of our constitution it clearly delineates the power of Congress to declare war. The war with Iraq is unconstitutional based on the fact that Congress never declared the war. Our president declared the war and allowing this bypasses the checks and balances built into our form of government. I encourage you to read the Constitution, it is amazing to see how the Congress AND the President must work together in the event of war. It attempts to prevent too much power from falling into the hands of one person. Therefore, the unlawfulness of this war has nothing to do the reasons that we entered the war, or wether the war is preemptive or preventitive. We did not follow our own law in how we are to enter into ANY military conflict. So to restate my previous point, I do not believe we continue in an unlawful war for any reason. When we do not obey our own laws we can not expect God to bless our actions.
As I stated earlier, this is really not my expertise, but I will try to restate my opinion more clearly. I hold to the opinion that war is only justifiable when it is an act of self (national) defense. Just as using deadly force by an individual is only justifiable in the case of self defense. You or I don't have the right to use deadly force against someone whom we believe intends or is planning us harm. Neither should our law enforcement punish someone that they think is planning a crime. We can not judge motives. We must wait until they actually break the law. Not liking someone and even hating someone is not a reason for the use of the sword that God gives to government. I would expand that to the national level. War is only justifiable when it is necessary for the defense of a nations citizens. I think we should only go to war with another nation to defend ourselves against an actual attack, not one that might possibly occur sometime in the future. (Think Soviet Union, they were a threat, but we did not attack them. We just built a strong defense and no lives were lost.) That said, I hope that you now understand that I do not support either preemptive OR preventitive war. I don't think we should go to war based on what we think another nations motives are.
I also believe strongly in national sovereignty. I do not think that the U.S. should go around telling any other nation what they should do, or what kind of government they should have, or what kind of weapons they should not build. We would not appreciate it if other nations did that to us. That is just my opinion and I understand that you disagree. No problem.
Brian,
As far as #2 and #3, we are disagreeing correctly.
#1 Uphold the Bible as being the source of absolute Truth." I agree with you. I was just listing these in order of importance to me.
#2 Have the ability to publicly and boldly confess Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.
Yes, it is IMPERATIVE that we are to be able to give a reason when asked for the hope that is within us with meekness and fear, having a good conscience (1 Pet 3:15) AND to be able to confess Jesus before men (Luke 12:8 ). It is a personal opinion to think that Huckabee is using his faith for personal gain, which would indeed go against the character of God, and that is judging the heart of man...something only God can do in His holiness.
“In a political campaign, what is the point of proclaiming Christ as one's Lord and Savior?”
It IS important to know what the foundation of all one’s beliefs are based upon and seeing just how accountable one is willing to subject themselves to it. In doing so, a bold Christian lives under a much higher level of scrutiny and persecution than the one who discusses his faith “discreetly” or ONLY when asked. That seems to be why there has been so much attention to it in the debates. I don’t think we are in disagreement in feeling compelled to elect godly leadership. On the other hand, the secular argument is that “faith” doesn’t matter. I disagree…pointing back to #1.
Brian,
#2 Be PRO-life and PRO-family
Yes, they both are; however, Ron Paul is not for the constitutional amendment to reflect that. Perhaps our disagreement is that I believe this carries a higher level of priority in protecting the moral degradation of our nation.
On a state level, Huckabee claims: "I first became politically active because of abortion, when I helped pass the Arkansas' Unborn Child Amendment, which requires the state to do whatever it legally can to protect life."
Again, the example I gave regarding California is quite disturbing.
Brian,
#3 National Security/Foreign Policy
This has gotten way off topic and into areas I am not well versed in. But…you can’t expect to refer me to a great article like that and not get a reply, right? I was going to quote parts of the article, but you’ve already read it and for the sake of saving time and space here, I’ll try to sum up my strongest beliefs here and leave the rest, like finding out exactly where all our troops are in the world right now, for personal research. I hope that‘s fair. :0)
Ok, so I’ve learned, from Robert Pape’s research data, that terrorism stems mostly from the ideologies of Marxism and Islamic Fundamentalists. But above this, Pape believes that terrorism stems from the occupier/occupant hate relationship. This isn’t new, is it?
The point is that no matter who is committing terrorism, whether Marxists or Jihadists, terrorists should not be allowed victory through their violence against humanity. Since when do we rationalize with murderers and give in to their devices??? Absolutely not! (I gave Kimberly an article that gives another light on things, but then again, from what I‘ve read, we just hold different perspectives.) There’s no “textbook answer” that says, withdrawing from such and such territory will appease their hatred and violence towards those who are occupying it - unless we want to talk about “faith“???. :0) Pape believes that it depends heavily on how long “occupants” occupy certain territory, but admits himself that it is not exclusive to achieve peace.
Brian,
As far as the numbers of deaths involved in war and the questions whether “to fight the terrorists over there, so we don’t have to fight them here”, I marked this in my Bible a few years ago, when it spoke to me personally on similar issues:
(Reading in context) Judges 3:2 “…this was only so that the generations of the children of Israel might be taught to know war, at least those who had not formerly known it… and Judges 5:31 “’Thus let all Your enemies perish, O LORD! But let those who love Him be like the sun when it comes out in full strength.’ So the land had rest for forty years.”
I hope this clarifies that I do hold a different perspective and that is what I meant when I wrote earlier, “As far as Ron Paul supporters, I ask: “Do you really believe in bringing ALL of our military back home?…really…ALL of them?…settling disputes with “words” over actions”…well…OK. If you BELIEVE in that…then you have YOUR candidate.”
Spunky,
"This legislation represents Huckabee's way of governing - compromise to avoid confrontation. Again, attacking Huckabee's character with your own personal opinion."
Thank you for the lesson on political philosophy. I admit, “character” was a bad choice of words. And thank you for admitting that you did give your personal opinion of his "political philosophy".
"where the Arkansas Constitution declares that men and women are FREE to pursue their own happiness."
I don't think this is a good argument for home schooling or for anything else (otherwise, people will interpret that as having the right to pursue same sex marriages, abortion, etc.)
Thank you for pointing out the "search" tool,too! :0)
Leinani,
You said: "It IS important to know what the foundation of all one’s beliefs are based upon and seeing just how accountable one is willing to subject themselves to it. In doing so, a bold Christian lives under a much higher level of scrutiny and persecution than the one who discusses his faith “discreetly” or ONLY when asked. That seems to be why there has been so much attention to it in the debates. I don’t think we are in disagreement in feeling compelled to elect godly leadership. On the other hand, the secular argument is that “faith” doesn’t matter. I disagree…pointing back to #1."
We do disagree on this. I do not believe a measure of a man's faith is what he has to say about his/her faith. To me, in the political campaign process, what a candidate SAYS is really just that...words. I have no personal relationship with the person, I have no way of judging their heart, because we are not in fellowship together. Therefore, words about faith in a campaign are really pointless. ACTIONS, however, over time begin to reveal more of what is in a man's heart.
From all of this...I DO NOT QUESTION ANY CANDIDATE'S RELATIONSHIP WITH JESUS CHRIST BY WHAT THEY HAVE OR HAVE NOT SAID (other than those who are clearly devoted to a faith outside of Christian understanding), I can only hear what they have said and then match that up with what they have done.
You said: "It is a personal opinion to think that Huckabee is using his faith for personal gain..."
I completely agree and I hope you did not think I was making that assessment about Mike Huckabee. However, there are candidates who have presented "faith" in some way, but then their actions do not match what they claim. This, along with me myself not having personal fellowship with a candidate, their spoken words of faith are really meaningless.
Regarding abortion:
You said: "Perhaps our disagreement is that I believe this carries a higher level of priority in protecting the moral degradation of our nation."
I am trying to figure out if you are talking about the constitutional amendment or the abolishing of abortion. I find abortion as appalling as you do AND it is clearly a sign of the moral degradation of our nation; but I believe we disagree on where the ban is fought. To me, the first step is overturning Roe vs. Wade. The second step is statewide constitutional amendments banning abortion. The next step, as an alternative, is a federal constitutional amendment banning abortion.
See http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issue...fe-and-liberty/
and http://www.ronpaul2008.com/artic...from-principle/
Leinani,
You said: "The point is that no matter who is committing terrorism, whether Marxists or Jihadists, terrorists should not be allowed victory through their violence against humanity. Since when do we rationalize with murderers and give in to their devices???"
Terrorism exists [period]. I don't believe waging a war in Iraq is stopping terrorism, if that is what you are implying as to why we are in Iraq. Based on what I have read, some experts believe terrorism is increasing by our presence in Iraq, some believe it is decreasing and some believe it is staying the same. I don't know the "right" answer, but I do know that terrorism is not being ELIMINATED by our presence in Iraq.
Remove terrorism from the discussion (because there are so many conflicting opinions), why are we in Iraq and why should we remain?
1. It is an unlawful war.
2. Saddam Hussein is dead.
3. We are using debt to finance the war.
4. We are using dishonest money for the war.
5. We are stealing from US citizens to fund the war.
6. Our soldiers are dieing.
7. Innocent people are dieing.
You said: "There’s no “textbook answer” that says, withdrawing from such and such territory will appease their hatred and violence towards those who are occupying it"
I completely agree and would also add that there's no "textbook answer" that says, withdrawing from such and such territory will NOT appease their hatred and violence towards those who are occupying it.
We can't claim one or the other...no one knows, BUT if we apply biblical principle to the question we find; "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets" Matt 7:12, and this would mean...would we want Iraq to occupy the US? How would we react if Iraq occupied the US? How should we respond in kind?
Biblically the war is wrong. Constitutionally the war is wrong. So again, I ask, why are we in Iraq and why should we remain?
RABBI SHMULEY BOTEACH makes the statement: "It is not for you to finish the entire enterprise. But neither are you free from beginning it."
I agree as long as we begin and continue biblically and constitutionally.
Leilani said, "where the Arkansas Constitution declares that men and women are FREE to pursue their own happiness."
I don't think this is a good argument for home schooling or for anything else (otherwise, people will interpret that as having the right to pursue same sex marriages, abortion, etc.)"
The Arkansas Constitution says, "“Freedom and independence. All men are created equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; amongst which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and reputation; and of pursuing their own happiness. To secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. ”
This legislation did not treat ALL men equally free to pursue their own happiness. The homeschool parent was forced to wait to take their child out of the public school but the parent who opted to go to a private school could do so immediately without a waiting period. That's not treating all men equally under the law.
Spunky,
Yes, but my point was "That's not treating all men equally under the law." is the argument of homosexuals against heterosexuals AND pro-choice against pro-life as the constitution is currently written.
That's why I back Huckabee's vision to pursue a pro-life and pro-family constitutional amendment. I've explained this further in my discussion with Brian (and possibly even Kimberly).
Brian,
I would like to add further clarification regarding faith in politics and abortion before moving on to national security.
FAITH IN POLITICS
You: “I do not believe a measure of a man's faith is what he has to say about his/her faith. To me, in the political campaign process, what a candidate SAYS is really just that...words. I have no personal relationship with the person, I have no way of judging their heart, because we are not in fellowship together. Therefore, words about faith in a campaign are really pointless. ACTIONS, however, over time begin to reveal more of what is in a man's heart.”
Me: "It IS important to know what the foundation of all one’s beliefs are based upon and seeing just how accountable one is willing to subject themselves to it. In doing so, a bold Christian lives under a much higher level of scrutiny and persecution than the one who discusses his faith “discreetly” or ONLY when asked. That seems to be why there has been so much attention to it in the debates. I don’t think we are in disagreement in feeling compelled to elect godly leadership. On the other hand, the secular argument is that “faith” doesn’t matter. I disagree…pointing back to #1."
I wrote the "foundation" of one's belief, not the "measure" of one's faith (meaning the basis and mere presence of one‘s actual “faith“, not the abundance or lack of it). I believe that these are 2 different things. One‘s foundation, or faith, always lends to one’s worldview, and worldview is VERY important in politics.
When I wrote: “There’s no “textbook answer” that says, withdrawing from such and such territory will appease their hatred and violence towards those who are occupying it - unless we want to talk about “faith“, I was talking about measurable faith here.
Actions do speak louder than just words. My point was that proclaiming one's faith, being BOLD in one's faith verbally, holds one more accountable to living out one's faith and leaving one subject to a higher level of scrutiny (as seen in this presidential campaign) and persecution (seen profoundly through the lives of martyrs in China, Pakistan, etc. ). To sum up my beliefs, faith is VERY important in politics because of one’s worldview in approaching every aspect involved in politics.
Brian,
You: "However, there are candidates who have presented "faith" in some way, but then their actions do not match what they claim. This, along with me myself not having personal fellowship with a candidate, their spoken words of faith are really meaningless."
First of all, I apologize for assuming you were talking about Huckabee. I believe words about faith in politics are important because other than the point I’ve already made about worldview, candidates can say words that line up almost perfectly with being conservative socially, economically, and in national defense, but the record doesn't prove so. Also, one can try to assert that he holds our worldview if he claims to read the Bible, but it isn't the same Bible we read and may not understand the difference (except some of times, when he's reportedly staying at hotels??? I know this candidate I‘m referring to is neither of our choice, so maybe I shouldn‘t have mentinoed). Being a judge of man's heart...ok…how about David. Scripture tells us that David was a man after God's own heart, but even he made grave mistakes during his leadership. The Lord hand picked him to be king. Again, the Lord looks at the heart and can solely judge it correctly in His holiness.
Brian,
ABORTION
I agree with your on #1...yes!...overturn Roe v. Wade. But, why is it better to wait for statewide constitutional amendments banning abortion before making it a federal amendment? Ron Paul has stated himself the impossibility of getting everyone to agree on this issue. R. Paul states, "Ideally this would be done in a fashion that allows states to again ban or regulate abortion...The alternative is an outright federal ban on abortion, done properly via a constitutional amendment that does no violence to our way of government." I again, bring up the example of California's governor signing the two school sexual indoctrination bills (SB 777, and AB 394), the bill awarding marriage names to unmarried couples (AB 102), and the bill attacking religious conscience on sexual matters (AB 14) as imperative reasons to NOT wait for statewide constitutional amendments before making it a federal amendment.
Brian,
NATIONAL SECURITY
Me: "The point is that no matter who is committing terrorism, whether Marxists or Jihadists, terrorists should not be allowed victory through their violence against humanity. Since when do we rationalize with murderers and give in to their devices???"
You: “Terrorism exists [period]. I don't believe waging a war in Iraq is stopping terrorism, if that is what you are implying as to why we are in Iraq. Based on what I have read, some experts believe terrorism is increasing by our presence in Iraq, some believe it is decreasing and some believe it is staying the same. I don't know the "right" answer, but I do know that terrorism is not being ELIMINATED by our presence in Iraq. Remove terrorism from the discussion (because there are so many conflicting opinions), why are we in Iraq and why should we remain?”
As far as getting off the topic of terrorism, I thought that’s what you were trying to assuade with the article you cited. You cannot remove terrorism from the discussion because Al-Qaeda is still operating, and although it seems the experts are having a difficulty obtaining the extent of their power and location due to the nature of their operation, their operation have been reportedly located in Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Algeria and Afghanistan with the ideology of Islamism, Sunni Islam, and Pan-Islamism. Another point is that the jihadists are targeting coalition forces. And one of the areas we disagree in is that I don’t believe terrorists should be allowed victory through their violence against humanity. And you haven’t presented any other solution to terrorism other than pulling out of Iraq and waiting.
Brian,
1. It is an unlawful war.
This is where I’m trying to understand your position better. Do I understand you correctly to believe that our presence in Iraq is STILL unlawful because Congress did not declare war BEFORE stepping foot in Iraq and NOT because it still is?
Ron Paul admits that he NEVER would have supported it in the first place. This is paramount in my reasons for not supporting him on his national security ideology.
2. Saddam Hussein is dead.
There are so many reasons why we stayed in Iraq. We were trapped, through some military misjudgments, to create stability after a good deal of the country’s infrastructure was destroyed and getting Iraqi’s to begin to take responsibility for their own security. Meanwhile, Iraqi resistance and casualties on both sides were becoming greater. This this is another area we disagree, because all of these decisions (whether with Iraq or the many other commitments we are involved in) have to be based on moral as well as logistic reasoning, and perhaps some religious consideration given the ideology of the jihadists specifically.
3. We are using debt to finance the war.
War IS expensive and not conducive to getting out of debt as quickly compared to not being in war. Are you saying that’s a good reason not to be in war? There are different scenarios we can compare. Here’s a common American example: Think about the family who is grossly in debt, and incurs a huge medical expense - let‘s say their child get‘s cancer (we can put this in terms of some sort of injury as well). Should they fight it…and if so, how? Should the family not battle the cancer because it costs too much? Should they not enlist the help and support of others? Or sit back, do nothing, and pray about it (I believe in miracles)? I’m not really asking you to answer these difficult questions, I’m just trying to make the point that we disagree here, too.
4. We are using dishonest money for the war.
I’m not sure what you’re referring to here. It must go back to what you were talking about earlier when you stated, “that unequal weights and measures are an abomination to the Lord”?
5. We are stealing from US citizens to fund the war.
Through taxes…or borrowing? Or perhaps, what you’re talking about in #4?
6. Our soldiers are dying.
Willingly and bravely so. Do you pull out of any war when you lose the first life, the first hundred lives, or the first thousand lives? In history, we have seen some wars fought down to the very last man on the field (so to speak) - not that that‘s good. But, we disagree here, too. Not that I’m ok with ANY lives being lost during war, but I understand the implications of war. This is not a good argument unless you are anti-war period.
7. Innocent people are dying.
Yes, this is TRAGIC. I am also reminded to think of the exorbitant number of innocent people who had died during Hussein’s regime and those who were and are continued to be murdered by jihadists around the world. And again we disagree in this area because I don’t believe in allowing jihadists to think it’s OK to manipulate the world through acts of killing.
Based on beliefs you have previously stated, I’m assuming you were against overthrowing Hussein in the first place? The US misjudged the Iraqi opinion after overthrowing Hussein (this is the downside of military strategy), that not all Iraqis were glad to be rid of Hussein and most Iraqis wanted the American soldiers to pack up and go home after this was accomplished.
You have made good arguments for your beliefs. It seems that I disagree with most of your stands and hold firm to my beliefs. Out of everything you and Kimberly have presented, I take both of your accusations of our country’s lawlessness with grave consideration, but I do not agree with Ron Paul's ideology on national security and foreign policy in its entirety, based upon the explanations I have previously given.
Leilani, just because another group uses a similar Constitutional argument erroneously to make their claim for same sex marriage does not negate its use here. I don't support same sex marriage, but our constitution is built upon the natural rights endowed by our Creator. That includes the parents rights to direct the affairs of their family unhindered by the state. The Supreme Court upheld this right because those rights are given to us by God and the state oversteps is bounds when it seeks to restricts them. The right is inherent in the fact that the Lord gave children to parents not the state. It is a matter of who has the compelling interest to direct the affaris of offspring of a free people. Laws like the one passed by Huckabee deny this natural right in favor of a state granted right with the gaining the compeeling interest in the affairs of the child. That's the difference.
Leinani,
One of things I want to communicate is that when I talk about biblical truth it isn't my truth, it is God's word and His will that I am trying to understand and communicate.
1. The war is unlawful because the US Government did not follow the rules of the land to engage in the war.
2. If we had not gone to Iraq, we would not need to use "moral and logistic reasoning" to remain. I am not convinced that there is a moral reason to remain. There may be a logistical reason to remain, but I am not driven only be reason, but rather more by biblical truth.
3. The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender. Prov 22:7
4. A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight. Prov 11:1
5. Yes, see 3 and 4. Both taxes and through the devaluation of the dollar.
My basis of decision making is biblical principles first (without assumption) and constitutional principles second.
I am not anti-war. War can be used when no other alternative exists in situations of direct national threat.
(Continued)
I don't start the decision to go to Iraq with the assumption that "jhiadists want to kill all Americans", or "jhiadists are the source of terrorist attacks". These are assumptions I have no way of verifying or knowing to be true.
Instead, I begin with God's word...what does God have to say about us going to war in Iraq?
I believe God says:
1. Follow my law and instruction that I have given to you. Honor me in all your ways.
2. Follow the rules of the land in which you reside as long as the rules don't violate #1.
3. Beware, if you borrow, you will be servant to the lender. I want you to remain my servant, therefore, don't borrow.
4. Do not use unequal weights and measure to increase your wealth.
5. Do unto others as you would want them to do unto you.
6. Do all things in love.
7. My ways are not your ways.
8. Honor me in all your ways.
From what I know (and obviously, I don't know everything), the decision to go to Iraq violates every one of the biblical principles above.
There are, however, other reasons to be in Iraq that I disagree with also:
9. US Government gains control and influence over more areas of the Middle East.
10. US Government gains access/control to oil.
11. US remains the superpower/authority in the Middle East.
12. Defense contractors get jobs and keep busy, therefore making profit.
13. Rebuilding contractors get jobs and keep busy, therefore making profit.
14. Other private individuals profit from the redistribution of resources needed in order to wage war.
15. US Government can increase its control and influence over the lives of its citizens and others throughout the world.
These are facts that are verifiable AND have occurred.
If items 1-15 did not exist, then I would begin to consider the option of going to Iraq. BUT, since they actually do exist, no other "moral" or "what about this bad thing that has or could happen" excuse should keep us in Iraq.
(End)
Leinani,
I think you are making an assumption here that is a bit of a jump from the facts that we know and what you have previously stated. You are assuming that we are actually fighting terrorism in Iraq.
1). Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. We invaded their country on the (now disproven) hypothosis that they had WMD and that they MIGHT give to our enemies.
2). Al Queda had a very negligible presence (if any) in Iraq before the US invaded and destroyed the infrastruction of that country. You stated yourself that you agreed with Ron Paul that,
"The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them."
Read that statement again. This war was NOT against the terrorists or terrorism. It has actually helped them. See the quote that you posted!
Based on the facts that Iraq has not engaged in terrorism against the US and that we have helped and strengthened the terrorists by destroying their enemy and a system of government (albeit an opressive one) that kept their power in check, why would you argue that it is necessary to continue to risk lives and go farther into debt for these objectives.
In my mind none of your arguments for continued sacrifice by the US stand up to the facts that the US is not fighting to protect its citizens.
For the record, Ron Paul supported the action to actually go after the terrorists responsible for 9/11 in Afghanistan and other countries. We have been so busy playing with lives in Iraq that we have not had the focus or energy to really be effective at fighting terrorism
Just for the record, Ron Paul on steps he thinks we should be taking to fight terrorism and try to prevent another attack.
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/ts...8/
tst012008.htm
Hint: It involves obeying the constitution and going after the actual terrorists who attacked us. It also does not risk the freedoms or lives of American citizens!
I just wanted to kindly reply that I have read all of your replies. I plan to tie in everyone's response all together in one post. I have been prayerfully considering all the information you have presented. I spent a good deal of time this AM in the Bible and in prayer, but I need a bit more time to reflect... You have all taught me so much, and I am very thankful for that. Unfortunately, I have other duties that are demanding my time all day today and part of tomorrow.
Leinani,
Thank you very much for staying in there with the barrage of information.
You are definitely thinking wisely by allowing things to settle, to meditate, and to seek God in all things.
Thank you for the discussion, your candor, and your willingness to contend for what you believe. It is a pleasure to discuss things without getting emotionally strained, defensive or aggressive.
May God bless the rest of your week.
Take your time Leilani, we're not going anywhere I've enjoyed our conversation and have been challenged without taking an offense at disagreements that have taken place among all who have participated.
I want to say the same thing that Brian and Spunky have said. I have been so impressed with you, Leinani, that you have defended your positions and that you have really persevered through all of this and that it has stayed so polite. I believe this is how Christians should disagree. Hopefully iron will sharpen iron and we will all come out of this with a more biblical outlook. I pray that we will all base our decisions on what God says and not just on our human reason and I think that we are all trying to do just that.
Brian, thanks for your last comment. I appreciate your willingness to stand on principle! If I had seen that before I posted my last response, I don't think that I would have posted it.
Blessings,
Spunky,
Just wanted to drop by to say "Hi!" and thank you for being right about Huckabee and his "political philosphy" of "compromise". (chuckle & thumbs up to you)
So...Huckabee supports McCain, now?!!! Not really surprising though. (eyeroll)
Just wanted to get your insight on my back-up candidate. I can't consciously vote for McCain. I don't care what "they" say about the Obama/Clinton hype. How about Alan Keyes? Or are you sticking to Ron Paul because of his non-interventionist foreign policy? Would love to hear back from you when you get a minute. Thanks!
That should have read "conscientiously", or however you spell it.
Hi Leinani,
Humble thanks for stopping by and letting me know where you're at with Huckabee. I've always enjoyed our challenging discussions!
I'm watching the candidates and thinking about what to do as well. That's part of the reason I've not been blogging about the election. I just want to see how things play out before I proceed. As a seasoned blogger, I've learned to speak slowly about certain issues and topics. I've been doing some more research and perhaps in the future I'll have some things to share. But for now, I'm watching, researching, and praying.
interestng website. did not home school my now grown children, but would still like to have you as a friend. i support people in the right to home school.
Commenting by HaloScan
