Monday, December 31, 2007

Pro-lifer Seriously Injured in Violent Attack; Operation Rescue Says Officer Should Be Disciplined

Pro-lifer Seriously Injured in Violent Attack; Operation Rescue Says Officer Should Be Disciplined
HARRISBURG, Penn., Dec. 31 /Christian Newswire/ -- Ed Snell, 69, received serious injuries that doctors feared could have cost him his life during an attack on December 22, 2007, outside the Hillcrest Abortion Center in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The responding female officer not only let the attacker go, but threatened to arrest witnesses that identified the perpetrator and demanded his arrest.

Mr. Snell was standing on a sturdy platform he had attached to the top of his vehicle in order to offer help to women over a fence that had been erected to prevent pro-lifers from speaking to them. Witness John McTernan said that a man who was escorting a woman into the abortion clinic, "leaped on the vehicle with Ed and catapulted him off of the vehicle and onto the ground." Mr. Snell struck the pavement with his head. He was transported by ambulance to the hospital where he was treated for multiple trauma, bleeding in the area between the brain and the tissues that cover the brain, compression fractures of four vertebrae, right scapula fracture, and fracture of the fourth and fifth ribs.

Three officers arrived to investigate but allowed the perpetrator to leave the scene. When Mr. McTernan objected and demanded an arrest, the female officer threatened to arrest him for interfering with a police investigation. ( Click here to read the entire story.)

"It is unbelievable that an officer would allow an attacker to go free after inflicting life-threatening injuries on an elderly gentleman, then threaten to arrest the witness to the crime," said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. "That was not only unprofessional conduct, but it showed a fundamental lack of respect for Mr. Snell's life and beliefs. She should face serious discipline."

Mr. Snell was released from the hospital the following day. His recovery is expected to take a full 8 weeks. Meanwhile, upon learning the seriousness of Mr. Snell's injuries, the police finally arrested and charged the man with felony assault.

This incident adds to a growing list of attacks on pro- lifers in recent months, which have all included unprofessional police conduct. Operation Rescue recommends that pro-lifers establish regular communications with local police supervisors in order to educate them as to the peaceful nature of pro-life activities and their protection under the First Amendment.

Any concerns about Harrisburg Bureau of Police conduct may be addressed to:
Police Chief Charles Keller
Phone: 717-255-3103

Christian Newswire

Saturday, December 29, 2007

Why was Romney Pro-abortion since 1970?

He said his Mormon mom taught him killing unborn babies was the right position when she ran for US Senate in 1970.

Nice guy. Blaming his mom for his pro-abort position.


Abortion Issues

Romney supports abortion in general, and believes in sustaining Roe v. Wade.
"Romney ran against Senator Edward M. Kennedy in 1994. During a debate, Romney declared: 'I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a US Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it.' "
(NOTE: Romney has supported abortion since before the 1972 Roe v. Wade ruling!)
- Boston Globe, 3/2/2006
Video of Romney vs Kennedy 1994 debate.

"When [during their debate] Kennedy called him 'multiple choice,' Romney demanded an extra rebuttal. He revealed that a close relative died of an illegal abortion years ago and said, 'Since that time, my mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter, and you will not see my wavering on that.' "
- Boston Globe, 3/2/2006
"On a questionnaire Planned Parenthood gave to the gubernatorial candidates in 2002, Romney answered ''yes" to the question, 'Do you support the substance of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade?' Romney also professed support for state funding of abortion services for low-income women, [Erin] Rowland [spokeswoman for the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts] said."
- Boston Globe, 3/25/2005
"Marie Sturgis, legislative director of Massachusetts Citizens for Life, said she hasn't detected any change in Romney's stance. The group considers Romney to be an abortion-rights supporter, as do national antiabortion groups such as the Family Research Council."
- Boston Globe, 3/25/2005
Romney campaigned for Governor of Massachusetts as a pro-choice candidate, and was endorsed by a pro-abortion political group
"Romney, a Republican and the former Winter Olympics chief, was endorsed by the New York-based Republican Pro-Choice Coalition. He mentioned his mother, Lenore Romney, who favored abortion rights when she ran for the U.S. Senate in 1970, even before the 1973 Roe v. Wade case affirmed women's constitutional right to abortions. . . . Lynn Grefe, director of the Republican Pro-Choice Coalition, applauded Romney's 'commitment to family planning and protecting a woman's right to choose' in a letter on Wednesday."
- Associated Press / New Bedford Standard-Times 10/3/2002
"Gubernatorial candidates Shannon O'Brien and Mitt Romney sparred yesterday over who was the strongest abortion rights supporter by touting endorsements from abortion rights groups and challenging each other's records on the issue . . . O'Brien and Romney both say that if elected they'll uphold state and federal laws protecting abortion rights. 'There isn't a dime of difference between Mitt Romney's position on choice and Shannon O'Brien,' said Kerry Healey, Romney's running mate."
- Associated Press / New Bedford Standard-Times 10/3/2002
In 2002, Romney responded to the National Abortion Rights Action League's candidate survey: ''I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's. The truth is, no candidate in the governor's race in either party would deny women abortion rights." Notably, Romney refused to answer the candidate questionnaire sent to him by Massachusetts Citizens for Life.
- Boston Globe, 7/3/2005
During the 2002 governor's race, Romney's platform stated, "As Governor, Mitt Romney would protect the current pro-choice status quo in Massachusetts. No law would change. The choice to have an abortion is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not the government's."
- Romney's 2002 campaign website
Romney is willing to support some embryonic stem cell research
"Romney has decided to support experimentation on surplus frozen embryos from in-vitro fertilization procedures."
- National Review Online 2/11/2005
Romney Approves of Abortion Pill and Supports the Legalization of RU-486
"When he ran for governor in 2002, Romney said he supported expanding access to the emergency contraception pill, a high dose of hormones that women can take to prevent pregnancy up to five days after sex . . . On a questionnaire Planned Parenthood gave to the gubernatorial candidates in 2002, Romney answered 'yes' to the question, 'Do you support efforts to increase access to emergency con-traception?' "
- Boston Globe 7/7/2005
In 2002, the Boston Globe reported Romney's positions from his1994 campaign as follows: "ABORTION: Favored basic Roe v. Wade abortion rights, though would not endorse a specific version of the Freedom of Choice Act, which would codify those court-established rights as federal law . . . Said he would leave the matter of Medicaid funding for abortion to individual states . . . Endorsed legalization of RU-486, the abortion-inducing drug."
- Boston Globe, 3/19/2002
"I don't really understand how it works or when it works but my understanding is it's an effective morning after pill and I think it would be a positive thing to have women have the choice of taking morning-after pills….I would favor having it available."
- Boston Herald, 5/19/1994
"A new law to make emergency contraception more available in Massachusetts continues to be a political rollercoaster for Governor Mitt Romney. He supported expanded access when campaigning for governor, but vetoed a bill expanding access, earlier this year. The bill then passed over his veto. Earlier this week, the governor sought to exempt Catholic and other private hospitals from having to offer 'morning after pills' to rape victims. Then yesterday, he reversed his position."
- WBUR Radio, Boston, 12/9/2005
Romney signs "Right to Privacy" Proclamation celebrating birth control availability
In March, 2005, Romney signed an annual proclamation establishing a ''Right to Privacy Day" to mark the anniversary of Baird v. Eisenstadt, a 1972 Supreme Court ruling legalizing birth control for unmarried people. Interestingly, Romney's staff deleted references to Roe v. Wade from the previous year's proclamation.
- Boston Globe, 3/25/2005

"DePaul University should be Stripped of its Designation as a 'Catholic' University" writes: ::

Why the Church Must Declare DePaul University No Longer Catholic.

Posted: 28 Dec 2007 08:37 AM CST

First in a series of three articles published in The Wanderer, the oldest national Catholic weekly in the United States. They will be republished here after they are available in Wanderer hard copy. TR.

From the December 20, 2007 issue.

By Thomas F. Roeser

CHICAGO-DePaul University should be stripped of its designation as a "Catholic" university.

And not just for the reason that makes it no different from all other.

Sure, as with many other venerable Catholic schools, it waters down the teachings of the Church into a one-of-many options-an amalgam of views-without singling out any one objective truth. That goes for most of the colleges called "Catholic." But with DePaul there are decidedly other factors, as this long study engaged by me-a former DePaul graduate student and an adjunct professor there and at a host of other schools, secular and Catholic for more than 30 years-proves.

The rap on DePaul that should deny it the name "Catholic" is this: In theology as in academic practice it is a psychedelic mockery of what a university is meant to be. It has gone berserk with at least two major derelictions.

First, on moral, not theological grounds, it provides seduction of the innocent by serving as an incubator of sexual decadence. It offers an academic minor in Gay Studies (a/k/a gay rights, lesbian, transgender and queer studies). Masquerading as academic studies they are the ultimate in hard-core and sexual explicitness.

Second, it denigrates the very idea of a university. It violates centuries of tradition of the university as a haven of academic freedom. It serves not as a colloquium of the open mind but fosters persecution of students and faculty dissenters and in more than one case has actively punished those who object to anti-Semitism.

As a third article in this series will show, it purveys in its gay course hard-core stuff that could easily be cited by such feminists as Dr. Catherine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin. They have criticized pornography as dehumanizing women and men which can be reasonably suspected as possibly causing violence against them. Such "studies" can in my estimation contribute to domination, humiliation and coercion of both genders, reinforcing sexual and cultural attitudes complicit in rape, harassment and objectification of men and women.

Although by current standards of academic decadence-shown by Tom Wolfe's realistic novel I Am Charlotte Simmons-DePaul ranks with the degradation spurred by so-called Ivy League schools, allowing it to continually use, as it does, the label "Catholic" serves as an insult and degradation of the Church. Under canon law, a university run by a religious order is accountable to the order to which it is affixed, in this case the Vincentians. But the bishop of the diocese in which it is situated has been recognized traditionally as having the right to approve or withdraw the label "Catholic."

The archbishop in this case is Francis Cardinal George OMI, of Chicago. He has already criticized the university for its celebration and indoctrination of the gay lifestyle and it has responded with a slap in his face, saying it shall be the judge of its own activities. Very well: the next step should be initiation of a process to remove the Catholic label as being unacceptable in this archdiocese-a step that will indubitably cause it harm by interfering with its false marketing as a presumed "Catholic" institution.

This is not to exonerate Catholic parents who out of their own culpable ignorance do not understand the turmoil that has happened to the Church's universities in the past three decades. But it is to show that if they continue to support the university they will have no one to blame but themselves.

This recommendation-to scrub the Catholic label from DePaul-is made by this writer, one who is a graduate school alum and twice-hired professor there. More than that: I have been an adjunct professor in political science at a number of universities throughout the country and the world for more than 30 years in addition to my full-time work as a vice president of a major Chicago-based corporation, The Quaker Oats Company.

These teaching assignments include two stints, at different times, at DePaul where earlier I had attended graduate school. At all times with the exception of a fellowship at Harvard, I taught at the schools in addition to pursuing my regular corporate duties.

I list these universities here not to preen academically but to show the reader that perhaps I know what I am talking about as I compare DePaul with other Catholic and secular universities.

My teaching experience includes service at:

Northwestern University's graduate school of management, the Kellogg School (two years); the John F. Kennedy Institute of Politics (fellow) at Harvard (full-time six months in Cambridge, Mass.); the Wharton School of Financ, University of Pennsylvania (once weekly for two years); Loyola University-Chicago (two stints); University of Illinois-Chicago; St. John's College, Oxford (twice); Philips Exeter academy; a series of special week-long assignments under the sponsorship of the Woodrow Wilson International Fellows program of Princeton, N. J including Reed College, Portland, Ore.(the nation's most gloriously self-declared anti-establishment school) and the University of South Texas, Georgetown, Texas.

This concluded with an assignment as Distinguished Fellow of the Franklin D. and Anna Eleanor Roosevelt University, Chicago (second year running) with an offer to continue in that capacity.

My relationships and fellowships at all these schools including DePaul-where I co-taught political science with the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee (a friend), David Wilhelm-have been positive.

It proves I'm not unused to teaching in schools whose faculty opinions differ from mine. Most of the schools would be categorized as liberal in politico-socio culture with the exception of Reed (radically left). Most (with the exception of Northwestern's Kellogg School) pursue a regimen of resolutely liberal, secular, even in some cases, left-wing ideology. Particularly Harvard-although there I was admitted to teach after an extensive interview with none other than Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) who gave me his warmest support, allowing it would be good for the Kennedy Institute of Politics to have diversity for which I thank him.

But let me tell you, of all these schools with the possible exception of Reed (where as adjunct professor I was summoned before a rump student inquisition to defend so-called "exploitation of the poor" by my company, Quaker Oats which indictment I beat by citing that the company sells oatmeal for two-cents per serving, DePaul takes the all-time record for radicality and blockage of academic freedom in my three-decades-long-plus teaching experience.

One anecdote of many: Only at DePaul did a militant student organization for "reproductive choice" stage a raucous demonstration by invading my class to shout down my guest, Cong. Henry Hyde, House Judiciary chairman, all the while the faculty snickered behind cupped hands and closed doors. None of this act of discrimination against free speech happened to Hyde or any of my other guests at any other of the above-mentioned institutions-only at DePaul.

This recommendation that "Catholic" be stripped from DePaul will come in three parts. The next one, the second, deals with an injustice meted out to a banned teacher, Tom Klocek, from the faculty because of his expressed views.

Friday, December 28, 2007

If we have no Hope in God we have Nothing!

Excellent Comment.

Thanks aeternus.

aeternus said...
Wow! What a story. Thank you. I especially was struck by the quote about Secularists. It is like the Pope has said - it we have no hope in God we have nothing!

“Secularists, it seems to me, are also less keen on fighting. Since they do not believe in an afterlife, this life is the only thing they have to lose. Hence they will rather accept submission than fight. Like the German feminist Broder referred to, they prefer to be raped than to resist.”

Huckabee Outdistances Romney 37% to 23%

Huckabee gains

Among Iowa Republicans, the poll found that Huckabee dominates Romney and the rest of the field not only among born-again Christians and regular churchgoers but also among women and the disaffected. He was supported by 46% of women surveyed, and 44% of voters who say the country is headed in the wrong direction.

Huckabee argues that the Republican Party needs to acknowledge the pocketbook anxieties of middle-class voters.

The GOP contest in Iowa is essentially a two-man race: Huckabee's 37% and Romney's 23% outdistance McCain and former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee, both with 11%; and former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas and Rep. Duncan Hunter of Alpine, Calif., who all register in single digits.

The Republican pecking order is completely different in New Hampshire, where evangelical conservatives hold less sway. There, Huckabee barely registers, backed by only 9%, while Romney leads with 34%.

But McCain has made notable gains in recent months: He has campaigned heavily there and won influential newspaper endorsements in the state, which backed him against George W. Bush in 2000. McCain has jumped into second place with 21%, up from 12% in September.

He edged out Giuliani, whose support in New Hampshire dropped 9 percentage points, to 14%.

Like Clinton, McCain may benefit if voters' concern about international affairs increases with the turmoil in Pakistan. Even in Iowa, far more Republicans say he would be the best candidate to handle foreign affairs. And when Republicans were asked if McCain was well prepared for the presidency, 78% of New Hampshire Republicans said he was.

No other candidate, in either Iowa or New Hampshire, drew such a heavy vote of confidence. But that may not be enough to sway voters who are looking for a fresh face.

"When I hear McCain, I feel comfortable that he may do a better job with the war," said Ray Buffery, a retiree in Concord, N.H., who is nonetheless supporting Romney. McCain, he said, "has been in the Senate quite awhile. [Romney] is a younger person."


Thursday, December 27, 2007

"[Huckabee] has to Win Iowa. If he does, he will be the Favorite . . . for the Nomination"

"[Huckabee] has to Win Iowa. If he does, he will be the Favorite . . . for the Nomination"
PJB: Is It Down to Mitt and Mike?
posted by Linda
by Patrick J. Buchanan

Not since 1952 has the nation entered a presidential year with greater seeming uncertainty as to who will face off in November.

Early that year, Tennessee Sen. Ernest Kefauver upset Harry Truman in New Hampshire, relieving the nation by dashing Harry’s hopes for another four years. The Republican race would be a titanic struggle between the Eastern Establishment’s Gen. Dwight Eisenhower and “Mr. Republican,” Ohio Sen. Robert Taft, the conservative paragon.

Splitting the primaries between them, Ike and Taft fought all the way to the convention, where Ike’s Texas delegates were seated and Bob Taft’s booted.

How important was that race? Ike would win and serve two terms. His young running mate, Richard Nixon, would be twice elected president. A dark horse for that GOP nomination, Gov. Earl Warren of California, who threw his support to Ike at a critical moment, would be named chief justice. Out of that Republican race would come the Eisenhower era, the Nixon presidency, the Warren court.

And though the 2008 GOP race may seem wide open, it is already probably down to three candidates, could be over by Jan. 4 and will probably be down to two by Jan. 9, the morning after New Hampshire.

The front-runner since spring, Rudy Giuliani, is close to toast.

By dropping out of the Iowa Straw Poll in August, Rudy ceded Iowa and the cornucopia of publicity the winner receives. He is running far behind in Iowa, sinking in New Hampshire and certain to be skunked twice by Jan. 9. If so, he will lose Michigan, then South Carolina, where he is already far behind, and Florida, his firewall, where he is now slipping behind both Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney.

If Rudy is 0-4 going into Florida, he loses Florida. If he is 0-5 going into the Feb. 5 Super Tuesday states, his national lead will be ancient history. In some national polls, it has already vanished.

The same holds for Fred Thompson. Though Iowans were eagerly awaiting his appearance at the straw poll, Fred, too, took a pass. And though he seems ideally suited to the party, he is running so far behind in New Hampshire and Michigan it is hard to see how he survives to reach home base, South Carolina. There, he is already behind Romney and Huckabee. In New Hampshire, Fred is behind Ron Paul.

Wisely, he is headed for Iowa to put all his chips on a strong showing, hoping Romney and Huckabee will do to each other what Dick Gephardt and Howard Dean did: rip each other out of contention.

If Fred does not make a strong showing in Iowa, a prediction: He will drop out and endorse John McCain, who has a shot at repeating his 2000 win in New Hampshire. For McCain has the endorsement of the Manchester Union-Leader and Boston Globe, and Rudy is pulling out of the Granite State, ceding the moderates to McCain, hoping he will stop Romney there and keep his own fading hopes alive.

If Mitt Romney wins New Hampshire, drop the curtain for Rudy, Thompson and McCain – and they know it. For if Mitt wins in New Hampshire, none of the three beats him in Michigan, they will not beat him in South Carolina, and they will not beat him in Florida.

Can McCain, who kicked away what seemed a near-certain nomination by embracing the Bush-Kennedy amnesty and stiffing the Iowa Straw Poll, win? Not impossible. If he can win New Hampshire and make himself the national alternative to Huckabee, a desperate GOP establishment might rally to him for lack of an alternative.

But McCain’s fate is not entirely in his own hands. He needs an assist. He needs Huckabee to defeat Romney in Iowa, where McCain will be waxed, then to come back and beat Romney himself in New Hampshire. Two losses by Romney in states where he has invested millions would put his campaign on life support.

But if Romney wins Iowa, he will win New Hampshire and Michigan, and go into South Carolina 3-0. If Romney wins the first two, he is almost surely the nominee. For that would eliminate Rudy, McCain and Thompson, leaving the only man able to stop him in South Carolina, a twice-defeated Mike Huckabee and his Christian prayer warriors.

So, two weeks out from Iowa, here are the odds.

Rudy and Thompson each 20-1. John McCain 6-1. He has to win New Hampshire, and even if he wins there, he would be an underdog. Grass-roots conservatives do not like him and would prefer Huckabee.

Mitt Romney 3-2. If he wins Iowa, he is almost unstoppable. If he loses Iowa, he has to come back and beat McCain in New Hampshire. Then it would a Mitt-Mike race through Feb. 5.

And Huckabee? He has to win Iowa. If he does, he will be the favorite in South Carolina and for the nomination, as well.

Looks like a Mitt-Mike race, with Iowa and New Hampshire giving us by Jan. 9 the two candidates from whom the nominee will be chosen. And isn’t that how it usually is? Iowa and New Hampshire choose for America.


Is Ann Coulter More Republican than Pro-family?

Coulter is trying to make Huckabee appear to be for "sodomy." To be fair to Ann, Huckabee is a pro-life and anti-gay mafia liberal on many issues. But I'll take a pro-family liberal to a gay mafia pro-abortion "conservative" any day of the week.

It appears Coulter may be more Republican than pro-life and pro-family.

Please read what the gay mafia says about Huck and then read Ann's article.

P.S. One other thing that the gay mafia and the Republican establishment are trying to put out is that Huckabee will lose to Hillary or Obama. History says just the opposite.

-Pro-life Carter beat Pro-abort Ford
-Pro-life Reagan beat Pro-abort Carter
-Pro-life Bush II beat Pro-abort Gore and Kerry
-Clinton beat Bush I and Dole because they ran away from the pro-life message.


Monday, Dec. 10, 2007 12:41 EST
Mike Huckabee's gay and lesbian thing
The first thing you tend to hear about former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is that he is a new kind of evangelical political leader -- he's not mad, he lacks the fire and brimstone of damnation, and he tends to speak more about alleviating suffering than identifying sin. Furthermore, he is able to pull off this new attitude without abandoning the core values of his conservative faith. He remains adamantly against abortion, he favors teaching creationism alongside evolution, and he supports a federal amendment to ban gay marriage.

How does he pull this off? Mostly with sympathetic, inclusive rhetoric. At the Values Voter debate in September, for example, Huckabee took time in an answer about gay marriage to express his tolerance for gay people. "I want us to be very careful that we don't come across as having some animosity or hatred toward people, even [those] whose lifestyles are inexplicable to us," he said.

But there are now sufficient reasons to question whether Huckabee meets his own benchmarks of tolerance when it comes to gay and lesbian issues. Over the weekend, the Associated Press disclosed a questionnaire Huckabee had filled out as part of a failed 1992 campaign for the U.S. Senate. Here's what he had to say then about the subjects of gay rights and the AIDS epidemic:

If the federal government is truly serious about doing something with the AIDS virus, we need to take steps that would isolate the carriers of this plague ... It is difficult to understand the public policy towards AIDS. It is the first time in the history of civilization in which the carriers of a genuine plague have not been isolated from the general population, and in which this deadly disease for which there is no cure is being treated as a civil rights issue instead of the true health crisis it represents.

He also said that AIDS was getting too much federal funding, compared with other diseases that affect more people.

In light of the extraordinary funds already being given for AIDS research, it does not seem that additional federal spending can be justified. An alternative would be to request that multimillionaire celebrities, such as Elizabeth Taylor (,) Madonna and others who are pushing for more AIDS funding be encouraged to give out of their own personal treasuries increased amounts for AIDS research.

Finally, he weighed in on homosexuality itself.

I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk.

These are not the words of a politician concerned about showing "animosity or hatred" toward gay people. In fact, Huckabee appears to be deep in the trenches of social warfare, identifying AIDS with a sinful, Hollywood-based, politically correct social movement that is endangering society both spiritually and medically. He was also wrong on the facts. At the time he filled out this questionnaire, it was well known that AIDS was not spread with the sort of casual contact that would have justified a quarantine. In 1986, the U.S. surgeon general had released his "Report on Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome," which stated this fact clearly. "AIDS is not spread by common everyday contact," the report reads. "We would know by now if AIDS were passed by casual, non-sexual contact."

In Huckabee's defense, he was not the only one who did not know the facts about AIDS in 1992. And his comments might also be explainable if Huckabee had since realized, and apologized for, his mistakes. But that is not what he has done. Over the weekend, Huckabee released a statement defending his ignorance at the time. Perhaps the most important part of the statement, as Marc Ambinder points out, is that it contains no repudiation of his anti-gay statements. Instead, he focuses on the confusion that remained in 1992 about the threat of AIDS, a confusion harbored mainly by those who had failed to educate themselves about the science. "At the time, there was widespread concern over modes of transmission and the possibility of epidemic," Huckabee says in the statement. "In the absence of conclusive data, my focus was on efforts to limit the exposure of the virus."

Set aside the fact that this is a distortion of history. The statement squarely calls into question Huckabee's kinder, gentler rhetoric. On Fox News Sunday, he explained his AIDS comments this way: "I'm going to simply say that that was exactly what I said. I don't run from it, don't recant from it. Would I say it a little differently today? Sure, in light of 15 years of additional knowledge and understanding, I would."

Back in September, I wrote a "Gay voters guide to the GOP," a fun look at how each of the presidential candidates views gay issues. I placed Huckabee as the most gay-friendly of the marriage hard-liners, in part because of the tone of his rhetoric. In light of this weekend's statement, however, it is clear that Huckabee does not deserve that place. Sympathetic rhetoric only goes so far. Candidates must be judged on how they perform when they are backed into a political corner.

― Michael Scherer


Liberals sing 'Huckelujah'
By Ann Coulter
Wednesday, December 26, 2007

All I want for Christmas is for Christians to listen to what Mike Huckabee says, rather than what the media say about him. The mainstream media keep flogging Huckabee for being a Christian, apparently unaware that this "God" fellow is testing through the roof in focus groups.

Huckabee is a "compassionate conservative" only in the sense that calling him a conservative is being compassionate.

U.S. Republican presidential candidate and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee speaks during a campaign stop in Coralville, Iowa, December 21, 2007. REUTERS/Jim Young (UNITED STATES)
Related Media:
VIDEO: War of Words?
He responded to my column last week -- pointing out that he is on record supporting the Supreme Court's sodomy-is-a-constitutional-right decision -- by saying that he was relying on the word of a caller to his radio show and didn't know the details of the case. Ironically, that's how most people feel about sodomy: They support it until they hear the details.

First, I'd pay a lot of money to hear how a court opinion finding that sodomy is a constitutional right could be made to sound reasonable. But the caller had the right response when Huckabee asked him, "What's your favorite radio station?" So he seemed like a reliable source.

Second, Huckabee's statement that he agreed with the court's sodomy ruling was made one week after the decision. According to Nexis, in that one week, the sodomy decision had been the cover story on every newspaper in the country, including The New York Times. It was the talk of all the Sunday news programs. It had been denounced by every conservative and Christian group in America -- as well as other random groups of sane individuals having no conservative inclinations whatsoever.

The highest court in the land had found sodomy was a constitutional right! That sort of thing tends to make news. (I was going to say the sodomy ruling got publicity up the wazoo, but this is, after all, Christmas week.)

So this little stretch-marked cornpone is either lying, has a closed head injury, is a complete ignoramus -- or all of the above.

Huckabee opposes school choice, earning him the coveted endorsement of the National Education Association of New Hampshire, which is like the sheriff being endorsed by the local whorehouse.

He is, however, in favor of school choice for kids in Mexico: They have the choice of going to school there or here. Huckabee promoted giving in-state tuition in Arkansas to illegal immigrants from Mexico -- but not to U.S. citizens from Ohio. "I don't believe you punish the children," he said, "for the crime and sins of the parents."

Since when is not offering someone lavish taxpayer-funded benefits a form of punishment? That's almost as crazy as a governor pardoning a known sex offender so he can go out and rape and kill.

Huckabee claims he's against punishing children for the crimes of their fathers in the case of illegal immigrants. But in the case of slavery, he believes the children of the children's children should be routinely punished for the crimes of their fathers. Huckabee has said illegal immigration gives Americans a chance to make up for slavery. (I thought letting O.J. walk for murdering two people was payback for slavery.)

Just two years ago, Huckabee cheerfully announced to a meeting of the Hispanic advocacy group League of United Latin American Citizens that "Pretty soon, Southern white guys like me may be in the minority." Who's writing this guy's speeches -- Al Sharpton? (Actually, take out "Southern" and "white," and I agree with Huckabee's sentiment).

He said the transition from Arkansas' Southern traditions would "require extraordinary efforts on both sides of the border." But, curiously, most of the efforts Huckabee described would come entirely from this side of the border. Arkansas, he pledged, would celebrate diversity "in culture, in language and in population." He said America would have to "accommodate" those who come here.

All that he expected from those south of the border was that they have a desire to provide better opportunities for their families. Basically, we have to keep accommodating everyone but U.S. citizens.

For those of you keeping score at home, this puts Huckabee just a little to the left of Dennis Kucinich on illegal immigration and border control. The only difference is that Kucinich supports amnesty for aliens from south of the border and north of Saturn.

In a widely quoted remark, Huckabee denounced a Republican bill that would merely require proof of citizenship to vote and receive government benefits as "un-Christian, un-American, irresponsible and anti-life," according to the Arkansas News Bureau. Now, where have I heard this sort of thing before? Hmmm ... wait, now I remember: It was during the Democratic debates!

In his current attempt to pretend to be against illegal immigration, Huckabee makes a meaningless joke about how the federal government should track illegals the way Federal Express tracks packages. (Can a Mexican fit in one of those little envelopes?)

In other words, Huckabee is going to address the problem of illegal immigration by making jokes. It's called leadership, folks.

Huckabee confirms for liberal TV hosts their image of conservatives as dorks by bragging about how cool he is because he "likes music." What's he doing -- running for president or filling out his Facebook profile? Arkansas former fatty loves to make jokes and play the bass guitar. Remember what happened to the last former fatboy from Arkansas trying to be "cool" by liking music? I'll take "Stained Dresses" for $400, Alex.

According to Huckabee, most people think conservatives don't like music. Who on earth says conservatives don't like music -- other than liberals and Mike Huckabee? This desperate need to be liked by liberals has never led to anything but calamity.

Huckabee wants to get kids involved in music at an early age because he believes it leads to a more balanced and developed brain. You know, as we saw with the Jackson family. Maybe someone should tell him the Osmonds are voting for Romney.

He supports a nationwide smoking ban anyplace where people work, constitutional protection for sodomy, big government, higher taxes and government benefits for illegal aliens. According to my calculations, that puts him about three earmarks away from being Nancy Pelosi.

Liberals take a perverse pleasure in touting Huckabee because they know he will give them everything they want -- big

Wednesday, December 26, 2007

Romney's Gay Mafia Christmas Present

What is the difference between Giuliani and Romney?

The Gay Mafia's media attacked Huckbee for saying Merry Christmas and daring to mention Jesus during Happy Holidays season.

The Gay Mafia supports Romney and Giuliani for promoting "homosexual 'marriage,' same-sex adoption and pro- homosexuality indoctrination of schoolchildren."

What is the difference between Giuliani and Romney? Romney seems to be deeper in the pocket of the Gay Mafia. Even Giuliani seems afraid to give a "Christmas Present to the 'Gay' Lobby."


Mitt Romney's Christmas Present to the 'Gay' Lobby Should End Pro-Family Leaders' Support for his Candidacy

CHICAGO, December 26 /Christian Newswire/ -- Peter LaBarbera, longtime pro- family advocate and founder of the Republicans For Family Values website, is calling on pro-family leaders who have endorsed Mitt Romney to withdraw their support for his candidacy in light of his recent comments on NBC's "Meet the Press" supporting pro-homosexual "sexual orientation" state laws.

"Mitt Romney's Christmas present to the homosexual lobby disqualifies him as a pro-family leader," LaBarbera said. "Laws that treat homosexuality as a civil right are being used to promote homosexual 'marriage,' same-sex adoption and pro- homosexuality indoctrination of schoolchildren. These same laws pose a direct threat to the freedom of faith- minded citizens and organizations to act on their religious belief that homosexual behavior is wrong.

"Romney may have had a late conversion on abortion, but it appears his ninth-inning flip-flop on homosexuality is falling short due to his strong commitment to 'gay rights,'" LaBarbera said. (See the 'Mitt Romney Deception' report) "Now some pro- family leaders -- who have raised millions of dollars over the years opposing 'gay' activism -- will need to explain how they can go on supporting an openly pro- homosexual-agenda candidate."

LaBarbera said it is "inconceivable after Massachusetts' twin disasters involving homosexual 'marriage' and homosexual adoption that Romney now is recommending pro- homosexual 'orientation' laws -- long derided as "special rights" among social conservatives - to the rest of the nation.

"In Romney's own state of Massachusetts, the state 'sexual orientation' nondiscrimination law laid the groundwork for homosexual activists' campaign to legalize 'same-sex marriage' -- which then-Gov. Romney brought to fruition with his unnecessary and illegal directive granting marriage licenses to homosexual partners," LaBarbera said. "The same pro-gay state law also forced Boston's Catholic Charities to shut down its century-old adoption agency because it would not pledge to place children in homosexual-led households against Catholic teaching.

"Given Romney's extensive pro-homosexual record and willingness now to depart from principle on this crucial issue, should we trust a 'President Romney' not to reverse course again on federal pro- homosexual laws such as 'Hate Crimes' and ENDA (Employment Nondiscrimination Act)?" LaBarbera said.

The following is excerpted from Romney's "Meet the Press" interview December 16 with Tim Russert:

MR. RUSSERT: You said [in 1994] that you would sponsor [Sen. Ted Kennedy's federal] Employment Nondiscrimination Act. Do you still support it?

GOV. ROMNEY: At the state level. I think it makes sense at the state level for states to put in provision of this.

MR. RUSSERT: Now, you said you would sponsor it at the federal level.

GOV. ROMNEY: I would not support at the federal level, and I changed in that regard because I think that policy makes more sense to be evaluated or to be implemented at the state level.

Republicans For Family Values is a website dedicated to defending pro-life and pro-natural-family principles within the GOP. For identification purposes only, LaBarbera is also president of Americans For Truth about Homosexuality.

Christian Newswire

Monday, December 24, 2007

Anti-Christians Attack Christmas and Huckabee

Huckabee Stands by Christmas Campaign Ad
By ELIZABETH WHITE, Associated Press Writer

Sunday, December 23, 2007

(12-23) 20:08 PST SAN ANTONIO (AP) --

Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee made no apologies Sunday for the religious tone of a recent holiday campaign commercial and said it is important to look for Jesus at this time of year.

"You can find Santa at every mall. You can find discounts in every store," Huckabee said from the pulpit of Cornerstone Church. "But if you mention the name of Jesus, as I found out recently, it upsets the whole world. Forgive me, but I thought that was the point of the whole day."

Huckabee was referring to the ad airing in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina that shows him in a red sweater in front of a Christmas tree as he asks, "Are you about worn out by all the television commercials you've been seeing, mostly about politics? Well, I don't blame you. At this time of year sometimes it's nice to pull aside from all of that and just remember that what really matters is the celebration of the birth of Christ and being with our family and friends."

"And I hope that you and your friends will have a magnificent Christmas season. And on behalf of all of us, God Bless and Merry Christmas. I'm Mike Huckabee and I approved this message," he says in the spot.

Independent groups have criticized the ad, saying Huckabee went too far mixing politics and religion. Others took exception to the cross-like image created by a white bookcase in the background, describing it as a subliminal message.

Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, has been on the defensive in recent weeks because of the ad and his rise in the polls, particularly in Iowa, where he has taken away the top spot from Republican rival Mitt Romney.

Speaking at a later church service, Huckabee said: "I got in a little trouble this last week because I actually had the audacity to say 'Merry Christmas.' Isn't that an odd thing to say at this time of year?"

Huckabee also discussed the ad during an interview on CBS'"Face the Nation" before delivering the sermons.

Asked whether he was running for president of Christian America, Huckabee said he was campaigning to be the "president of all America, to be the people's president. And that's how I served as governor."

He said the ad was put together quickly, and that book shelves formed the cross in the background.

"Everyone thought that we were so smart and clever. The truth is, it was a book shelf," Huckabee said. "We hurriedly put the spot together. It wasn't scripted. I ad-libbed the spot. It was done at the end of a long taping day, and really kind of a thought of, well, let's do a Christmas spot just in case we decide to use it maybe on our Web site."

At Cornerstone Church, Huckabee's more than 30-minute sermon to the nearly full 5,500-seat auditorium focused on the Christmas story, which he said was the "remarkable story of an unwed teenage mother."

"The great truth of Christmas is that no matter how good we are, we're not good enough to know God without the Christ," said Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist minister. "And no matter how bad ... we are not so bad that he cannot find us."

Huckabee's campaign is trying to rally conservative Christians to help him win in early primary states, but he said his church appearance was not political.

"So while some people seem to want us to lose Jesus, I would like for us to do our best to find him," Huckabee said at the megachurch, where televangelist John Hagee is the senior pastor and founder.

Separately, The Dallas Morning News on Sunday endorsed Huckabee for the Republican presidential nomination. The newspaper said that while he is not an "ideal candidate," he "is the change agent the nation most needs."

The Morning News also endorsed Democrat Barack Obama "because of his consistently solid judgment, poise under pressure and ability to campaign effectively without resorting to the divisive politics of the past."

Huckabee was to attend a private fundraiser in San Antonio before returning to Arkansas for the holidays.

Sunday, December 23, 2007

Top Catholic Songs of 2007

To download go to:

Top Catholic Songs of 2007.

1.Sean Clive's Amazed from Amazed
2.Teresa Smith's Holy Holy Holy from Blooming
3.Joel Stein's Satisfied from Always Forward
4.Nick Cardilino's Discover the Way from Discover the Way
5.News at Eleven's Alleluia (Raise Your Voice) from Here to the End

Hearty congratulations to all participating musicians. Be sure to check out these incredible songs. Support Catholic Music today!


Love Songs from the Scepter of the Holy Spirit

It’s poetry — and not just the parts that are supposed to be poetry. Here’s an unofficial translation from Teresa Benedetta:

By Pope Benedict XVI

Dear brothers and sisters,

According to common thinking today, Christianity is a European religion, which was later exported with European culture to other nations. But the fact is much more complex, because the roots of the Christian religtion are found in the Old Testament, and therefore in jerusalem and the Semitic world. Christianity haa always nourished itself from its roots in the Old Testament.

Even its expansion in the first centuries took place in both directions: to the West - the Greek and Latin world, where it then inspired European culture; and towards the East, to Persia and as far as India, thus contributing to raise a specific culture, in the Semitic languages, with its own identity.

To show this cultural pluriformity of the only Christian faith in the beginning, last Wednesday I spoke of a representative of this other Christianity, Aphraate the wise Persian, almost unknown to us.

In the same line, I wish to speak today of St. Ephrem the Syrian, born in Nisibi around 306 to a Christian family. He was the most important representative of Christianity in the Syriac language, one who succeeded to reconcile uniquely the vocations of thelogian and poet.

He was educated and grew alongside Jacob, Bishop of Nisibi (303-338), and together with him, founded the theological school of their city. Ordained a deacon, he intensely shared the life of the local Christian community until 363, when Nisibi fell to the Persians.

Ephrem then moved to Edessa, where he continued his activity as a peracher. He died in this city in 373, victim of the plague he contracted from caring for those who had been stricken.

It is not known for certain whether he was a monk, but in any case, he remained a deacon all his life and embraced both chastity and poverty. The common and fundamental Christian identity appears in his specificity cultural expression: faith, hope - the hope which allows one to live poor and chaste in this world, placing every expectation only in the Lord - and finally, charity, up to the gift of himself in caring for the victims of the plague.

St, Ephrem has left us a graat theological legacy. His considerable output can be grouped in four categories: works written in ordinary prose (his polemical works and Biblical commentaries); works in poetic prose; homilies in verse; and finally, the hymns, surely Ephrem’s most extensive work.

He is a rich and interesting author in many ways, but especially in his theological profile. The specificity of his work is that theology and poetry encounter each other.

In approaching his doctrine, we must insist from the beginning on this: that he cast theology in poetic form. Poetry allowed him to deepen theological reflection through paradoxes and images. So at the same time, his theology becomes liturgy, it becomes music. He was, in fact, a great composer, a musician.

Theology, reflection on the faith, poetry, song, and praise of God all go together; and divine truth appears precisely in the liturgical character of Ephrem’s theology. In his quest for God, in his theology, he followed the way of paradox and symbol. He largely favored contrasting images because they serve to underline the mystery of God.

I cannot now present very much of his work, if only because poetry is not easily translatable, but to give at least an idea of his poetic theology, I would like to cite parts of some hymns. Above all, especially in view of the coming Advent, here are some splendid images from the hymn on the nativity of Christ.

Before the Virgin, Eophrem manifests his wonder in inspired words:

“The Lord came to you
to become a servant.
The Word came to you
to be still in your womb.
Lightning came to you
without making any noise.
The Shepherd came to you -
and becomes the newborn Lamb
with his submissive plaint.

The womb of Mary
has changed the roles:
He who created all things
took possession in poverty.
The Highest came to you (Mary)
but he entered with humility.
Splendor came to you,
but dressed in humble rags.
He who makes all things grow
knew hunger.
He who waters everything
knew thirst.
Bare and stripped, he came from you,
he who clothes everything in beauty.”
(Hymn “De Nativitate”11, 6-8).

To express the mystery of Christ, Ephrem used a great diversity of expressions and images. In one of his hymns, he effectively links Adam in Paradise with Christ in the Eucharist:

“It was the cherubin’s spade
that closed the path
to the Tree of LIfe.
But for the people,
the Lord of this tree
gave himself as food -
he himself as offering (Eucharistic).

The trees of Eden
were given as food
to the first Adam.
For us, the Gardener in person
has made himself food for our souls.

Indeed we all left Paradise with Adam,
who left it all behind.
Now that the sword has been taken away,
there (on the Cross), we find it again
in the lance that pierced.
(Hymn, 49,9-11).

To speak of the Eucharist, Ephrem used two images: the ember or burning coal, and the pearl. The ember comes from Isaiah (6.6), in the image of the seraphin who picks up an ember with tongs and simply brushes it across the lips of the prophet in order to purify it. The Christian, on the other hand, takes and swallows the Ember, who is Christ himself.

“In your Bread is hidden the Spirit
which cannot be consumed.
In your wine is the fire
which cannot be drunk.
The Spirit in the bread,
the fire in your wine:
behold the wonder
that we welcome to our lips.

The seraphin could not, with his fingers, touch the ember
which he could only bring close to Isaiah’s mouth.
The fingers did not hold it, nor did the mouth ingest it.
But the Lord has conceded both to us.

Fire descends with ire to destroy sinners
but the fire of grace descends on the bread and stays.
Instead of the fire which destroyed people,
we have easten the fire in the bread
and we have been revived.
(Hymn “De Fide”10,8-10).

Finally, a last example of St. Ephrem’s hymns, where he describes the pearl as a symbol of the richness and beauty of the faith:

“I place the pearl, my brothers,
in the palm of my hand to examine it.
I look at it from one side, then the other -
and it looks the same from every side.

So it is with our search
for the inscrutable Son -
because he is all light.

In its limpidity, I see the Limpid
which does not become opaque.
In its purity, I see the symbol
of the pure Body of our Lord.
And in its indivisibility, I see
the truth which is indivisible.
(Hymn “Sulla Perla” 1, 2-3).

The figure of Ephrem is still fully relevant in the life of the various Christian churches. We discover him, first of all, as a theologian who, starting from Sacred Scripture, reflects poetically on the mystery of the redemption of man by Christ, the Word of God incarnate.

His is a theological reflection with images and symbols taken from nature, from daily life and from the Bible. Ephrem confers a didactic and theological character on poetry and hymns for liturgy, Ephrem used these hymns to spread, on liturgical occasions, the doctrine of the Church. And in those times, they proved to be extremely effective as a catechetical means for the Christian community.

Ephrem’s reflections on the theme of God the Creator are important: Nothing in the world is isolated, and the world, alongside Sacred Scripture, is the Bible of God, but using his freedom in the wrong
way, man overturns the order of the cosmos.

The role of women was very relevant to Ephrem. The way in which he spoke about women was always inspired by sensitivity and respect: Jesus dwelling in the womb of Mary had raised the dignity of all women. For Ephrem, just as there is no Redemption without Jesus, there could be no Incarnation without Mary.

The divine and human dimensions of the mystery of our Redemption are found in the texts of Ephrem: poetically and with fundamentally Scriptural images, he anticipated the theological background and in some way, the language itself, of the great Christologic definitions made by the Councils of the fifth century.

Ephrem, honored by Christian tradition with the title ‘Scepter of the Holy Spirit’, remained a deacon of the church all his life. It was a decisive and emblematic choice: he was a deacon, therefore, a servant, both in the liturgical ministry as, more radically, he was a servant of the love of Christ, which he sung in unparalleled way, and in his charity towards his brothers, whom he introduced with rare mastery to a knowledge of divine revelation.


Saturday, December 22, 2007

14 Pro-lifers Arrested Outside Giuliani's Headquarters

14 Pro-lifers Arrested Outside Giuliani's Headquarters

Anti-Abortion Legend, Joan Andrews Bell and Companions Refuse to Pay Fine; Jailed for 5 Days
"There should be 1,000 pro-lifers sitting in at Giuliani's offices nationwide; he is like Joseph Stalin when it comes to killing the innocent."
-- Joan Andrews-Bell
MANCHESTER, New Hampshire, Dec. 21 /Christian Newswire/ -- 14 arrested outside Rudy Giuliani's headquarters in Manchester. Among them were dedicated anti-Abortion leaders, Randall Terry (founder of Operation Rescue), Joan Andrews-Bell (who has served multiple years in prison and is the Author of "You Reject Them, You Reject Me.") and her son Emiliano (whom suffers from "frozen joint disease" and was adopted after being rescued from a dumpster after being born with no legs.)

11 anti-abortion protestors led by Randall Terry were arrested on Tuesday for blocking the entrance to Guiliani's headquarters and charged for criminal trespassing. On Wednesday other activists followed suit: Joan Andrews Bell, son Emiliano and Willy Lewis. Randall's group was finally released around 10pm that same day, but he was inexplicably transferred and detained over night and finally released Thursday around 2pm.

Joan Andrews-Bell, Emiliano and Willy Lewis plead "nolo condendere" (which neither admits nor disputes a charge). They were fined $240 each, which they refused to pay. They were then sentenced to 5 days in jail at the Hillsborough County Jail in Manchester. Their decision is the outgrowth of their uncompromising commitment to be in solidarity with the victims of abortion, and to expose the pro-death position of Rudy Giuliani.

"These Manchester sit-ins are the beginning of a series of events that will take place in several states and escalate through Super Tuesday. Our plan is that February 5th will be the funeral of Rudy's treacherous presidential bid," said Randall Terry.

For comments call Randall Terry at 904-461-0834

For footage of the protest and arrest go to:

Christian Newswire
To: National Desk
Contact: Randall Terry, 904-461-0834

Thursday, December 20, 2007

Giuliani's FOX News Attacks Huckabee

So there is a "possible link between the Giuliani campaign and Fox News CEO Roger Ailes." If Hillary were a Republican, FOX would be pushing her on the "pro-life" Hannity show.


"In the fall, a story broke regarding a possible link between the Giuliani campaign and Fox News CEO Roger Ailes which was meant to bolster the former New York Mayor's popularity." Commentary

Daniel T. Zanoza, National Director

December 16, 2007

As Huckabee Soars, Attacks Soar, Too: Especially From FOX News?
by Daniel T. Zanoza

I haven't decided who I will support among the gaggle of Republicans seeking their party's presidential nomination. Well, there's one candidate who I will never support and that's former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

However, like many, I have been astounded by the meteoric rise in the polls of former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. Recent polling indicates Huckabee has a double-digit lead in Iowa and he is also the front runner in Florida.

Huckabee's charge to the front of the GOP pack has brought with it blistering criticism. But for the first time in over 30 years of watching politics, the liberal mainstream media is being more fair to a conservative than some right wing media pundits, including those who toil for the Fox News Network.

Earlier this year, I wrote a column pointing out the favoritism shown towards Rudy Giuliani by the mainstream press and, surprisingly, Sean Hannity (Hannity + Colmes of Fox News). ["Giuliani candidacy should be unacceptable to pro-life Republicans"] In the fall, a story broke regarding a possible link between the Giuliani campaign and Fox News CEO Roger Ailes which was meant to bolster the former New York Mayor's popularity.

Like many, at the time, I dismissed some of these allegations, but I now have to admit, it appears Hannity was trying to push Giuliani down the throat of his mostly conservative viewers. Unfortunately for those who seek objectivity in their news coverage, since Mike Huckabee seems to be leaving Giuliani in his dust, the attacks against Huckabee have become even more hot and heavy. Fox News, the network whose slogan is "fair and balanced," is leading the pack.


One of the favorite tactics being advanced to diminish Huckabee's recent surge in Iowa involves the make-up of that state's electorate. Supposedly, the only reason Huckabee now leads Mitt Romney, John McCain, Fred Thompson and Giuliani is because Evangelical Christians, people of strong faith and social conservatives dominate that state's electorate. Therefore, even though Romney, Thompson and Giuliani have spent literally millions of dollars in Iowa, we are being asked to believe Huckabee's popularity is essentially a political anomaly which will have no bearing on the Republican presidential nomination process. Even popular Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly (The O'Reilly Factor) has helped to advance this theory.

The problem with those who use this rationale for Huckabee's political successes is the fact he now leads in Florida. This state was supposed to be a breakwater for the Rudy Giuliani campaign to stop the momentum of any of his more conservative challengers who may have won in earlier primaries in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Therefore, it can be assumed Huckabee's support is real and resonating with the Republican base. This is a fact that has shocked some fiscal conservatives and the country club set within the GOP who look upon government and politicians strictly to help them accumulate wealth. This group minimizes the relevance of issues such as abortion, same-sex "marriage" and the attacks on religious freedom in the public square.


Some of the greatest criticism against Huckabee has come from a group called the Club for Growth. The Club for Growth (CFG), which is a 501(c)(4), endorses Republican candidates who support limited government and lower taxes. CFG pools member's contributions to help selected Republican candidates. But some have been critical of the CFG itself for its single-minded Libertarian approach to politics and the group has also been linked with the Clinton machine in Arkansas and the fearsome political war it waged on Huckabee while he was that state's governor. The facts are Huckabee balanced the budget in Arkansas and he has also pledged not to raise taxes if he were elected President of the United States.

In Illinois, the state where I live, Huckabee's campaign manager is the former Executive Director of the Family Taxpayers Network, an anti-tax organization. Though I do not propose to be an expert on taxes, as in all things, the truth about Huckabee's record on taxes probably falls somewhere in the middle. Huckabee does support the Fair Tax initiative which many believe would be a much more equitable system of taxation compared to our current system. The Fair Tax initiative would eliminate the IRS and some economic experts contend the plan would eliminate many of the abuses which permeate America's present form of taxation.


Huckabee was recently endorsed by Minuteman founder Jim Gilchrist. Although I disagree with some of Huckabee's past positions in Arkansas, here are the facts on this issue. Huckabee wanted to provide assistance to the children of illegal immigrants who wanted to attend that state's colleges. The assistance would equal grants given to in-state legal residents. However, if you were an American who lived outside the state of Arkansas, a student would not be eligible for the tuition breaks and this is the reason Huckabee's program was widely criticized--and rightfully so.

Since he decided to run for the Republican Party's presidential nomination, Huckabee has stuck to his guns concerning the matter, saying it was not the decision of the children to enter the U.S. illegally. There also exists the fact some of these children were born in the U.S., which makes them American citizens, regardless of their parent's illegal status.

Huckabee has since pledged to seal the border with Mexico. According to polling on this issue, by a wide margin the security of our border with Mexico is the major concern of the American people. Americans do not want amnesty, but they would favor an expanded guest worker program. In my opinion, some have used Huckabee's former policies as Governor of Arkansas to unfairly criticism him.

The illegal immigration issue is certainly a complicated one. I believe sealing the border must be America's top priority. Also, heavy sanctions should be levied against sanctuary cities, including San Francisco and New York which protect illegal immigrants from adhering to our nation's laws. After these safeguards are put into place, we can then decide what to do about the 12 million or more illegal immigrants who are already here. Demagoguery over the issue serves no one and does not add one iota to a reasonable political discussion of the debate over illegal immigration.


In an interview conducted by Sean Hannity, the host levied a withering attack of Huckabee concerning some pardons he issued as Governor. One such pardon resulted in the tragic murder committed by an individual who obviously should have served his full sentence as handed down by a judge, after a jury found him guilty. Huckabee has admitted he made a mistake in the case. Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, has been one of Huckabee's harshest critics over the issue of pardons.

Here again, the facts regarding Huckabee's tenure as Arkansas governor regarding crime and punishment paints a very different picture. No matter where one stands on the issue of capital punishment, the fact is 19 people were put to death in Arkansas while Huckabee was governor. No murderer was put to death in Massachusetts during Romney's term as that state's chief executive. Again, Huckabee's record has been, in many cases, taken out of context with his entire approach to criminal justice in his state.


Conventional wisdom states the front runner in any campaign will be the target of those pursuing him or her. I believe this is a fair game approach related to the candidates who are trailing. However, when the media advances an obvious agenda, meant to degrade a candidate, this crosses the line of journalistic fairness and objectivity. On Hannity + Colmes, the issue of Mike Huckabee's recent explosion of popularity was presented to longtime Republican operative Mary Matalin.

Matalin launched into a tirade of criticism targeting Huckabee. What Matalin and Sean Hannity did not divulge on air is the fact Matalin is connected with the campaign of one of Huckabee's opponents, Fred Thompson. NOTE: Within the Fox News website transcript of the interview, the fact Matalin was a supporter of Thompson is revealed.

I never thought I'd see the day when a social conservative was treated more fairly by the liberal dominant media than by a network which professes to be "fair and balanced" like Fox. During an interview with George Stephanopoulos ("This Week with George Stephanopoulos" -- ABC News) the former Clinton operative conducted a fair and concise interview with Huckabee in which Stephanopoulos praised Huckabee's political achievements. Of course, Stephanopoulos dealt with some of the charges being levied against Huckabee, but I felt overall it was a balanced interview.

The same can be said when Huckabee appeared on "Face the Nation" with Bob Schieffer (CBS News). Again, the questioning of Sen. John McCain, which directly followed the Huckabee interview, was less caustic in nature. But with being the leader in the polls will come more scrutiny and that can be expected.


Another area where Huckabee has come under fire concerns his lack of money and organization. Personally I can agree with this criticism. Recently, I spoke with Huckabee's midwest coordinator, Shane Henry, and I was promised an interview. This occurred nearly three weeks ago and I still am waiting for a response from the Huckabee campaign--besides a note stating they would get back to me. I feel this is a legitimate criticism of Huckabee's effort and only time will tell if the public groundswell will lead to a greater fund-raising capability on Huckabee's part and along with that would come superior organization.


As with any candidate, I do not agree with all of Mike Huckabee's past decisions and plans for America if he were elected. I would just as easily vote for Fred Thompson and, to a lessor degree, John McCain. Since 36% of Republicans polled say they would not vote for a Mormon, Mitt Romney's electability may truly be questioned. I cannot vote for Rudy Giuliani because of his support for abortion, same-sex "marriage" and his past position on illegal immigration as New York's Mayor. There is something the dominant media and some conservative pundits must know. Unfair criticism of any candidate will only stiffen the resolve of that individual's supporters. Such is the case with Mike Huckabee. Obviously, there are some elitist Republicans who believe Huckabee should not be entitled to the Republican presidential nomination. That decision should be left up to the American people.

Caption for Photo: Mike Huckabee


The above is posted at:
Anyone who would like to be included on's e-mail list should e-mail:

Tuesday, December 18, 2007

The Iraq Debate: Russell Shaw's Closing Statement

The Iraq Debate: Russell Shaw's Closing Statement
by Russell Shaw
Display Full Article/Printer Friendly | Send to a Friend

Five quick comments:

1. My thanks to Bob Reilly for making my point: UN weapons inspectors were back in Iraq months before the U.S.-led invasion. That Saddam Hussein wasn't happy is neither surprising nor relevant.

2. Even I, no expert in such matters, can see something slightly, shall we say, fishy about anti-Saddam revelations by a defecting brother-in-law. In any case, this inventory of Saddam's WMD arsenal goes back eight years before the war. I share Reilly's wonderment at the disappearance of such a formidable force -- supposing it ever existed, that is.

3. It's beside the point that President Clinton in 1998 signed a measure declaring it American policy to "support efforts" to overturn Saddam Hussein. Lending unspecified support to others -- in this case, presumably, disaffected Iraqis -- and launching a war of one's own to effect regime change are two very different things.

4. By no stretch of the imagination can Pope John Paul II's encouragement of Iraqi democracy after the war be read as endorsement of U.S. policy before the war. Have we forgotten so soon that the Holy Father vigorously opposed this war?

5. I'm glad to amend what I said about U.S. unilateralism and make it practical unilateralism instead. It appears that many, if not most, of the countries in the Coalition of the Willing signed on in the expectation of being rewarded by the Bush administration. With the exception of the British and a few others, most sent token troop contingents. The number of coalition nations still in Iraq is down to 26. Sixteen have 100 or fewer soldiers there, many with non-combat roles. Even the British will cut their presence in half by next spring

In concluding, let me say I hope the pacification of Iraq succeeds. I hope General Petraeus is Time's Man of the Year. I hope a peaceful, stable Iraq will become the fulcrum of a peaceful, stable Middle East. But even if all that happens -- and I wouldn't bet a lot on it -- this will remain an unjust, ill-considered war.

However, instead of ending my part in this exchange with a friend I'm sorry to disagree with by making a closing statement covering the waterfront of my concerns, I want to return to a single aspect of this unjust war that ought to have special poignancy for American Catholics. I mean the harm done to Iraqi Christians.

Before the war there were 1.2 million Christians in Iraq. In the wake of war and a rash of anti-Christian threats and violence by Islamists, more than half have fled. The Iraqi government, to its credit, has offered free transportation and $800 to any family willing to return. So far 4,700 families have done that, and another 8,500 are on a waiting list. By my estimate, that adds up to about one Christian in ten of those who've packed up and left.

"They love their country, but at the same time it is impossible for them to go back to this situation," says Chaldean Catholic Bishop Antoine Audo of Aleppo, Syria, who struggles to provide pastoral services for 60,000 Iraqi Catholic refugees.

"It may be the end of Christianity in Iraq."

No one claims the United States had this tragedy in mind in 2003. But by recklessly intervening in a country we didn't understand, we unquestionably helped bring it about.

Russell Shaw is a writer and journalist in Washington, D.C. His 19th book, Nothing to Hide: Secrecy, Communication, and Communion in the Catholic Church, is forthcoming in 2008 from Ignatius Press.


The Iraq Debate: Robert R. Reilly's Closing Statement

The Iraq Debate: Robert R. Reilly's Closing Statement
by Robert R. Reilly
Display Full Article/Printer Friendly | Send to a Friend

It simply will not do to demote the importance of enforcing treaties at the end of wars to some kind of adolescent "need to save face." After World War I, the Allies failed to enforce the provision of the Versailles Treaty that forbade German forces from remilitarizing the Rhineland. The cost of that failure was not simply "humiliation," but World War II.

To not enforce the 1991 cease-fire agreement with Iraq would have been to abandon the political goals for which the war had been fought. Russell Shaw does not bother to address the potential costs of such a defeat, probably because he thinks Saddam was "a pipsqueak tyrant," who offered no real threat.

Hitler was a pipsqueak in 1936, until he faced down the Allies, whose military forces were at that time far superior to the German. In the former Yugoslavia, Milosevic was kept a pipsqueak because the United States and NATO forces prevented his designs (without UN authorization). In North Korea, Kim Jong-Il is a pipsqueak with nuclear weapons, to whom we send tribute in the form of energy supplies and grain. Pipsqueak tyrants are as powerful as we allow them to become. However, once they become powerful, as when they possess weapons of mass destruction, the costs go way up.

I do not believe that if Shaw saw the incontrovertible evidence of what Saddam had done and was doing, along with an examination of the malign principles of his regime, that he could maintain his insouciance at the prospect of Saddam's survival -- indeed, of his potentially empowering success against us.

As for the UN, it is hardly "extravagant" to assert that a treaty contains the authority to enforce its provisions, without the requirement of a separate authorization to do so. In fact, it is a rather respectable legal view. Also, how could UN Resolution 1441, in 2002, threaten "grave consequences" for non-compliance if there were not to be any? Saddam was directly in violation of 15 UN resolutions. Would the number 16 do the trick? This is daydreaming.

As for the assertion that the United States "did nothing" to halt Saddam's slaughter of the Iraqi people after the 1991 Gulf War, I would agree that Bush senior was culpable in not going to the rescue of the Shia in the south, but can Shaw have forgotten that Bush then instituted the northern and southern no-fly zones in Iraq that were maintained for 13 years precisely to protect the Iraqi people?

I think that a great deal of the harm that Shaw rightly objects to from the 2003 war comes not so much from the invasion, but from the bungled occupation. I share his distress and outrage on this matter, and I hope some people will be held accountable for it. The United States achieved a great military success, but then changed in midstream from liberation to (UN-sanctioned) occupation. We were not prepared to occupy this country, nor had we led the Iraqis to think that that was our objective. I think this was a huge and costly political mistake, as was our not being sufficiently prepared to stop the gross interference in Iraq by Syria and Iran after Saddam's fall.

However, these grave errors do not impugn the justness of the cause for which the war was fought, or the nobility of the sacrifices now being made to overcome those mistakes. I leave the last words to a brave Marine now serving in Fallujah: "We know that our efforts are appreciated by millions of Iraqis who now have choices and freedoms that they have never had the luxury of having before. To liberate a country and to free the citizens from years of torture are appreciated by the citizens of Iraq, and we (1st Battalion, 10th Marines) see that every day and are overwhelmed at the opportunity to take part."

Robert R. Reilly served as Senior Advisor to the Ministry of Information in Iraq and is a former director of the Voice of America. He is currently a senior fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council.




1. Have I ever failed to confess a serious sin, disguised it or justified it?

2. Have I been guilty of irreverence for this sacrament by failing to examine my conscience carefully?
3. Have I failed to perform the penance given me by the confessor or disobeyed any of his directions?
4. Have I neglected the Easter duty of receiving Holy Communion or failed to confess my sins within a year?
5. Have I any HABITS of serious sin to confess first (impurity, drunkenness, gossip, anger, sloth, vanity, neglect of duties, etc.)?


Love God with your whole heart, mind and soul


Am I ignorant of my catechism (Act of Contrition, Apostle's Creed, Ten Commandments, Seven Sacraments, the Our Father)?
Have I willfully doubted or denied any of the teachings of the Church (heresy)?
Have I taken active part in any non-Catholic worship?
Am I a member of any anti-Catholic or any secret society?
Have I practiced any superstitions (horoscopes, fortune tellers, etc.)?
Is God the most important thing in my life, even before mother, father, sister, brother, wife and children - before money, things, pride, honor, and even love.
Have I attempted to know God so that I can love Him.
Have I obeyed God His way and not my way.
Have I obeyed God's bishops in all things except sin?
Have I attributed to God or His messengers what was not from Him?

"Vain" in Greek is "shav" which means "commonly, falsehood or vanity"

Have I used God's name in vain by way of profanity?
Have I treated God commonly?
Have I given to God words that are not His?
Have I used God for my own honor?
Have I murmured or complained against God (blasphemy)?
Have I maligned priests or others consecrated to God?
Have I sworn by God's name (oath) either falsely or rashly?
Have I broken any public or private vow?
Have I treated God commonly at Mass or in conversation?

Have I missed Holy Mass on Sundays or holy-days through my own fault?
Have I been late for Holy Mass through my own negligence?
Have I been inattentive at Holy Mass or otherwise failed in reverence for the Most Blessed Sacrament?
Have I done unnecessary servile work (physical labor) on Sunday?
Have I eaten meat on Friday or failed to make another sacrifice?
Have I left Holy Mass before the priest left?

Love everyone as you love yourself


"Honor" in Greek "kabed" OT & "timao" NT, means to make heavy, weighty.

Have I been disrespectful to my parents or neglected them?
Have I failed in obedience or reverence to others in authority?
Have I mistreated my spouse or children?
Have I been disobedient or disrespectful to my husband?
Regarding my children:
-Have I neglected their material or emotional needs?
-Have I failed to care for their early Baptism or their proper religious instruction?
-Have I allowed them to neglect their religious duties?
-Have I tolerated their keeping questionable company or steady dating?
-Have I otherwise failed to discipline them?
-Have I given them bad example?
-Have I let boys and girls sleep together?
-Have I interfered with their freedom to marry or follow a religious vocation?

Have I quarreled with any one?
Have I caused others to sin by my anger?
Have I treated people unkindly?
Have I make anyone unhappy by my actions or words?
Have I cursed anyone or otherwise wished evil on him?
Have I taken pleasure in anyone's misfortune?
Is there anyone to whom I refuse to speak or be reconciled?
Have I lied about anyone (calumny)? (Must be publicly corrected)
Have I rash judged anyone of a serious sin?
Have I engaged in gossip (detraction) or spread scandal? (Must be publicly corrected)
Have I lent an ear to scandal about my neighbor, even if true?
11=Have I damaged anyone's reputation, even if true? (Must be publicly corrected)

Have I been jealous or envious of anyone?
Have I made anyone unhappy in any way other than correcting sin?

Have I denied my spouse his or her marriage rights?
Have I practiced birth control?
Have I abused my marriage rights in any other way?
Have I committed adultery or fornication?
Have I touched or embraced another impurely?
Have I sinned with others of the same sex?
Have I sinned impurely with myself?
Have I harbored lustful desires for anyone? (Same sin as 4)
Have I indulged in other impure thoughts?
Have I failed to dress modestly?
Have I done anything to provoke or occasion impure thoughts in others?
Have I read indecent literature or looked at indecent pictures?
Have I watched suggestive films or programs?
Have I permitted my children or others under my charge to do these things?
Have I used indecent language or told indecent stories?
Have I willingly listened to such stories?
Have I boasted of my sins?
Have I sinned against chastity in any other way?

Have I stolen anything?
Have I damaged anyone's property through my own fault?
Have I cheated or defrauded others?
Have I damaged anyone's reputation?
Have I refused or neglected to pay any debts?
Have I neglected my duties or been slothful in my work?
Have I refused or neglected to help anyone in urgent necessity?
Have I failed to make restitution?

Have I knowingly caused others to sin?
Have I cooperated in the sins of others?
Have I sinned by gluttony?
Have I become intoxicated?
Have I abused narcotics?
Have I been motivated by avarice?
Have I indulged in boasting or vainglory?
Have I received Holy Communion or another sacrament in the state of mortal sin?
Is there any other sin I need to confess?
Prayer for a Good Confession

O my God, by my grievous sins I have re-crucified Thy divine Son to myself and have deserved Thy everlasting wrath in the fires of hell. Even more, I have been most ungrateful by my sins to Thee, my Heavenly Father, Who have created me out of nothing, redeemed me by Thy Son, and sanctified me in the sacraments by Thy Holy Spirit. But Thou hast spared me to make this confession. Receive me back as Thy prodigal son and grant me to confess myself well, that I may begin anew to love Thee with my whole heart and soul, henceforth keeping Thy Commandments and suffering patiently whatever temporal punishment for my sins may remain. I hope by Thy goodness and power to obtain everlasting life in paradise. Through Christ Our Lord. Amen.

Monday, December 17, 2007

Romney is No JFK

Romney vs. JFK

BY The Editors

December 16-22, 2007 Issue | Posted 12/11/07 at 1:47 PM

There are reasons a Catholic might wince when Mitt Romney, a Mormon and the former governor of Massachusetts, gives a speech about religious tolerance. We found plenty. But we also found reasons to applaud.

The first reason to wince is the anti-Catholic nature of his religion. Mormons believe that Christ failed in his project to found a church, and that the history of Christendom is the story of “The Great Apostate,” the Catholic Church. More than 1,800 years would pass before the true church was founded: the Church of Latter-Day Saints.

The second reason to wince is the political legacy of Mitt Romney. It was on Romney’s watch that the Supreme Court of Massachusetts demanded that the state’s Legislature legalize homosexual “marriage” — among the most damaging usurpations of legislative power by a judicial body in American history. America is a democracy. Here, citizens and their representatives make laws. Yet Gov. Romney ordered state officials to perform “same-sex marriages” because unelected judges — not voters — told him to.

The third reason to wince is because it’s hard to accept Romney’s convictions at face value. He said it best in his speech: “Americans do not respect believers of convenience. Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world.” We tire, for instance, of politicians who give heartfelt speeches lauding abortion rights to win the support of Massachusetts voters, and soon after give heartfelt speeches about the right to life to win the hearts of pro-life Republicans.

But then again, we’re used to presidents whose religions consider the Catholic Church illegitimate — and we don’t want to complain too loudly when a politician switches to a position that is more pro-family than before.

And Romney’s speech hit all the right notes.

The secular media expected it to be the Mormon’s JFK moment, and by “JFK moment” they meant the Houston speech when Catholic candidate John F. Kennedy assured Americans he wouldn’t be taking orders from Rome. The problem with the JFK speech is that it went further than it needed to. Said Kennedy: “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute … where no church or church school is granted any public funds.” He also looked forward to an America “where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials” [emphasis added].

But of course, this vision is vastly different from the Founding Fathers’ vision of America.

Even President John Adams, a Unitarian, made the point that religion is vital to American democracy.

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion,” said Adams. “Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people.”

Mitt Romney quoted those words in his speech because he wanted to make the important point that a free society can’t survive without a vigorous religious commitment on the part of the people. Self-government is only possible for people who can govern themselves. And for people to behave with virtue on a wide scale, they need to have the influence of religion.

Church-going people know that God created them and their neighbors and expect that God will hold them accountable for what they do. No, they won’t be perfect. Far from it. But a nation made up of such people will be markedly different from a nation of uncommitted individualists who never learned the Golden Rule. A nation that worships God can be trusted with liberty; a nation that rejects him in word or deed will need to be ruled with an iron hand to avoid lawlessness or anarchy.

As Romney put it, “Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.”

He corrected Kennedy’s extreme view of the separation of church and state.

“We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason,” said Romney. “No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America — the religion of secularism. They are wrong.”

Romney’s description of America’s “symphony of faith” impressively praised each of the major worshipping bodies in America: “I love the profound ceremony of the Catholic Mass, the approachability of God in the prayers of the Evangelicals, the tenderness of spirit among the Pentecostals, the confident independence of the Lutherans, the ancient traditions of the Jews, unchanged through the ages, and the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims.”

But ultimately, as several commentators have noted, the God Romney bowed to is the “In God We Trust” civic deity of our currency.

Romney singled out ”the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast commitment to liberty” as religious “American values.” These, he said, “are the firm ground on which Americans of different faiths meet and stand as a nation, united.”

In so doing, Romney did what nearly all of our presidents have done. The 11 Episcopalians 10 Presbyterians, five Methodists, four Baptists, four Unitarians, three “Disciples of Christ,” two each from the Dutch Reformed, Congregationalist and Quakers, and the one Jehovah’s Witness (Eisenhower, who became Presbyterian after his inauguration) and one Catholic had this in common: They each honored the God that the Declaration of Independence honors.

We have no objections to adding “one Mormon” to that list, if he deserves it and if he does the same.

Make a Donation now!

Insightful. Informative. Uncompromisingly faithful. The National Catholic Register is more than a newspaper. It’s a cause. Your support for the Register funds important journalism that helps to build a Culture of Life in our nation, and throughout the world. Help us promote the Church’s New Evangelization by donating to the National Catholic Register right now.


Saturday, December 15, 2007

Huckabee and Catholics writes:

COMMENTARY: Huckabee and Catholics

By Deacon Keith Fournier


Catholic Online

The last Republican primary debate before Iowa is over. The emergence of former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee to front runner status is the story of the hour. Catholics are starting to look seriously at this new former Governor from Hope named Huckabee. Many like what they see.
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA (Catholic Online) - The big news in the fast paced presidential race is the emergence of former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee from the back of the pack, even to the lead, in many polls. The 2008 primary campaign has become a real horse race for Republican candidates.

The untold story is the apparent fear that such a turn of events is producing in his opponents, both Democrat and Republican.

The Democratic Party has put out its talking points, apparently intended to stem the growing Huckabee surge. These points found their way into every possible media outlet this past week. Using a sort of “reverse psychology” play, the Democrats seem to want to bait the Republicans to “bring him on”, implying that he will lose handily in a general election.

Apparently, the Republican establishment was well disposed to take the bait. They seem almost apoplectic that another former Governor from Arkansas, with a likeable manner and populist feel, is catching fire. But this time around he is in their primary race. They thought it was a forgone conclusion that their candidate, the one who supports an unencumbered abortion “right” (opposing the real right, the one to life) and advocates that homosexual paramours be given equivalency with married couples, was going to win on an “I’m tougher than you are” platform.

“Why”, they seem to have thought, “He had even won over some of the one time leaders of the so called ‘religious right’.” And, it does appear that some of these former leaders had become so discouraged they would have done anything to keep another Clinton out of the White House.

It appears that the establishment was wrong. Along comes another former Governor from Hope, Arkansas, with a message that cannot be pigeonholed, an appealing manner and style, and an ability to draw from diverse constituencies, to upset the playbook of both major parties.

His name is Mike Huckabee.

Now, the real strategy of opposition has begun. One of the efforts, a standard opposition research approach, is to plumb the candidate’s past and attempt to paint the future with a brush dipped in out of context quotes. I understand this approach. I have been involved in political campaigns and know that every campaign has an opposition research strategy. We can expect a careful reading of the formerly active Baptist ministers’ sermons for weeks to come.

Of course, many Americans can quickly discern what is happening. They know that this candidate was a Baptist preacher. They also know we are not electing him to be the Nations pastor but the Nations President. They have listened to him in the debates and they are beginning to pay attention to his public policy positions.

This approach has little staying power.

No, the real opposition strategy is the one that is only now winding up in the playbook. The effort consists in intentionally evoking fear in the electorate by insinuating that Governor Huckabee is an ‘intolerant fundamentalist’ kind of Christian who will seek to force his narrow faith upon the rest of the Nation. You see this strategy lurking behind so many of the stories and the statements coming from the establishment of both major parties.

The long and the short of this approach will be to paint Mike Huckabee as the candidate of “the Evangelicals”, a term which has sadly become a code word for “the fundamentalists.” It falls just short of accusing the former governor of being a closet Theocrat, a kind of “extremist” of the Christian variety.

Not only is the approach anti-Christian and bigoted, it also fails to see the growing ability that this candidate seems to have to reach into many diverse constituencies. His recent crowds have shown his increasing appeal. They have also shown some unexpected demographics, such as an uncanny capacity to speak to youth. Demographic analysis shows Mike Huckabee cutting across many of the categories.

The unexpected shocker that very few of the pundits and prognosticators expect is Mike Huckabees growing support among Catholics.

Catholics, at least those who heed the continuing direction from their Church leaders, are obligated to inform their conscience by the social teaching of their Church and vote accordingly. Among the ways that this teaching can be grouped is one that I have used for years. This approach is what I have called the “four pillars of participation”, life, family, freedom and solidarity.

The Social teaching maintains that there are some unchangeable truths, such as the dignity of every human person, and the right to life, from conception to natural death; the primacy of authentic marriage and the family founded upon it; and our obligation in solidarity to one another, and, most especially, to the poor and needy in our midst. The compass that is to guide us all as we seek to be both faithful citizens and faithful Catholic Christians is our commitment to the Common Good.

On many of these issues, this new Governor from Hope, Arkansas, running for President, seems to be quite consistent with this teaching. Oh, there are some other concerns which must be considered. However, there is also a hierarchy of values by which every candidate must be evaluated.

Ironically, some of the very issues where the candidate is being attacked are the areas where he is appealing to many Catholics.

For example, though most voters are concerned with illegal immigration, most Catholics are also concerned that our Nation recognizes the dignity of every human person. That includes illegal immigrants. Some Catholics, like me, worry that the rhetoric surrounding this hot button concern may lose the real issue and fail to recognize our obligations in solidarity.

So, when one of Huckabees opponents turned to the Governor in the “You Tube” debate, to scold his past support of equal treatment for the children of immigrants in access to public schools while he was Governor of Arkansas, the calm response of the candidate, saying “We are a better country than that” scored well.

In addition, an increasing number of Catholics (myself included), following the lead of their Church, oppose the use of Capital punishment in the West. Not because it is “intrinsically evil” (unlike abortion which is intrinsically evil), since it is presumably not the taking of innocent human life. Rather, because it is no longer justified to protect society and the common good and bloodless alternatives are readily available which allow mercy to trump justice. So, the Governors support of capital punishment is tempered for us when he shares with honesty his caution about its use as a Chief Executive.

The candidate also espouses a sincere concern for the poor. He has been criticized because he does not line up with the kind of “Cato Institute” approach to an unencumbered market economy. Once again, what some may consider a negative, for Catholics, shows that the candidate has a concern for the primacy of persons, the family and the common good over capital. In our tradition, though the market economy provides a superior opportunity for an exercise of human freedom, the market is made for man and not man for the market.

So, in what is now a hotly contested Republican Presidential primary, pundits and prognosticators should pay attention to a group of voters that has remained relatively unnoticed.

It appears that this new candidate from Hope, Arkansas does not just speak to evangelicals. His message - and his manner- are beginning to draw the interest of another very large group of Americans.

Catholics are starting to look seriously at this new former Governor from Hope. Many like what they see.


To respond to this email, subscribe, or unsubscribe, please contact Dr. Frank:

Thank you.