GUEST COLUMN
By Mary Starrett
Constitution Party Communications Director
The fact that the media are toadying up to president wanna-be Mike Huckabee should tell you all you need to know.
He is not, never has been, nor will he suddenly turn into, a statesman who will get the United States back on a constitutional track.
The media have for one reason only blessed Mike Huckabee; and it has nothing to do with his profession of faith in the Nazarene.
Media have anointed him a ‘frontrunner’ despite his profession of Christian beliefs.
The reason is, Mike Huckabee embraces enough big-government, left-leaning socialist policies and ideology that his Christianity can be forgiven him by a press corps decidedly hostile to all that honors Providence. (Full Article)
6 comments:
Mary Starrett had me nodding in agreement through most of her piece, but her endorsement of Ron Paul left me shaking my head in disbelief. As a Christian conservative and believer in the Constitution, I appreciate much of what Paul has to say, but his support for "Truthers" and his absurd ideas about a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq leave me convinced that he is a kook who is unable or unwilling to face realities. His ideas, if implemented, would lead to the death of millions in the middle east and would further embolden our enemies to press their attacks on the West. That Paul has the delirious support of some of America’s most strident critics worries me that they know something about this man that I don’t.
Ms. Starrett’s gratuitous remark about Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution would lead the casual reader to believe that the war in Iraq has been waged without Congressional approval. The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, a law passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243 was a declaration of war. That the wording doesn’t suit some folks doesn’t change the fact.
I agree with you, Theo. Ron Paul is very good in most areas, but we part ways bigtime over Iraq. He sounds more like a MoveOn.org-er than a Republican in this area. There were numerous justifications for the Iraq invasion. I think Paul's libertarian tendencies are working overtime, here.
Mary is with the Constitution Party, and many of them, while very good folks, are closer to Paul's philosophy when it comes to foreign policy and involvement in world affairs. I believe most of them do so from a perspective that springs from the opinions of the Founders, who advised not to get involved in foreign entanglements.
But as I've told a number of people on this issue, the Founders didn't live in a world where enemy bombers could be over our skies in hours, or enemy missiles wipe out whole cities in less than 30 minutes, or enemies in civilian clothes fly airplanes into skyscrapers, deliberately targeting civilians, and killing thousands in moments. They were protected by vast oceans that no longer provide a buffer. I think that if they lived in the world we face today, they would still advise against involvement where we have no direct interest (can you say Kosovo?), but states such as Iraq that supported terrorism and undermine our credibility have to be dealt with for national security.
Sometimes I publish items that I don't necessarily agree with completely, provided they don't advocate or excuse immorality, and this is an example. I reprinted it with the author's permission because I am continually stunned by the number of conservatives and Christians who have no idea about Mike Huckabee's liberal record. If Huckabee does end up getting elected, there's going to be some serious buyers-remorse.
One additional thought on involvement in foreign wars just occurred to me.
One of the first military actions the newborn United States undertook was the Barbary Wars under Thomas Jefferson.
This was a situation far from home, not threatening our home shores in the slightest.
Yet President Jefferson saw that appeasing hostile Muslims who were attacking our shipping (maybe like Iraq was firing on US and British aircraft--some 200 times in 2002?) was just inviting more hostility.
So we went in and cleaned house in the Battle of Tripoli, from whence the Marines get the phrase for their anthem: "to the shores of Tripoli."
So the Founders obviously understood the difference between getting involved in a military action where there is no compelling national interest, and one where national security and credibility are on the line.
Very good point, Bob. The Barbary Wars were the first test of the resolve of our new nation to assert ourselves in the cause of justice outside our own borders. Thomas Jefferson asked the Ambassador to Britain from Tripoli why they attacked American ships without provocation. The response, as reported to Congress, was
"That it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Qur'an, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise."
Ron Paul seems to believe that all foreign policy-making powers reside in the Congress. But then he promises that,as PRESIDENT, he will get us out of Iraq immediately. This appears to be a major contradiction. He clearly does not comprehend the threat that America faces today, even 225 years after the Muslims told us their intentions.
Unbelievable! Thank you for posting this article! Just the past 24 hours I have begun to pray and ask the Lord if I am off-base somehow. How can the majority of mainstream Christians support Mike Huckabee? Why is nobody pointing out his liberal economic, social, and foreign policies? Ideas like big taxes, big government, a welfare state, slushy borders, and globalism contradict scripture. Why aren't people talking about this?
I'm not sure if I agree with Ron Paul's strict non-interventionist stance on foreign policy, as Bob pointed out, but I think his voice of restraint is MUCH NEEDED. Our leaders no longer see war as a "last resort" as the Founders intended. Much of their war talk seems arrogant and inflamatory to me, not to mention that we literally can't afford to "make the Middle East into our image."
So for now, I continue to stand behind Ron Paul. Thompson has grown on me, but Ron Paul is the only one without a globalist mentality.
Well written Mary. Keep up the great work!
Post a Comment