Yearly Archives: 2011

Reactions to Mike Huckabee’s decision not to run for president

 

 

Bill Vickery on the Sunday morning buzz on 103.7 FM, today said that  Mike Huckabee spent the majority of his time in his statement telling why his family and most of the world wanted him to run for president. 

 

Next Huckabee said he was not going to run.

Also Huckabee spent a lot of timing bashing political pundits whenHuckabee himself is employed to talk on TV about politics. 

Vickery later said, “Huckabee is a business commodity that can not be denied. I think he should take over Glenn Beck’s time slot. ”

Max Brantley of the Arkansas Times Blog noted: 

For your morning entertainment, the clip of Mike Huckabee saying he wouldn’t run for president. (I still say a possibility remains) is available at realclearpolitics.com. It’s a classic me-me-me Huckabee oration, full of straw men and divine guidance. In the end, he opted for prosperity and security and there’s not a thing wrong with that. Why not just say itand move on? 

 

____________________

 

One thing that Brantley is fond of doing is calling Huckabee a “tax fugitive” since he moved to Florida.  The funny thing to me is, liberals like Dale Bumpers raised the state income tax so high that it drives away wealthy people many times. Yet after raising the taxes so high, liberals want to ridicule those that move to low tax states. Why not lower the  income tax here so we can retain these very productive people. (We have a higher state income tax then any of the states that border us and TN and TX don’t have any income tax) I guess liberals will never think of something like that.

Jason Tolbert reported yesterday Huckabee decided not to run. Here is some commentary from Tolbert:

The final act of the Huckabee Presidential tease is finally over and it ended with Huckabee saying he “will not seek the Republican nomination for President this year.”  He teased it for couple days in order to get everyone to watch his show tonight.  His supporters got their hopes up that he would announce and he played along then let them down.

That was mean. I am glad he is not running but feel bad for a lot of his supporters that are figuring out tonight what I figured out a little over a year ago – It is all about the money not the principles.

 

Statement from Mike Huckabee…

The pundits and members of the political class who have spoken with certainty about my decision to run or not for President in 2012 are amusing if not amazing to think that they knew what even I didn’t know until late this week. The past few months have been times of deep personal reflection. Even though I wasn’t actively establishing a campaign organization or seeking financial support to run again, polls have consistently put me at or near the top to be the Republican nominee. When possible candidates were discussed in the media and despite polls that showed me in the lead, my name would often go unmentioned while a candidate barely registering single digits was touted as a “front-runner.” I found comfort that the nomination would not be made by commentators, columnists, or consultants, but by the rank and file voters in the Republican primary, and their support is strong and has been growing.

Concerns that I had about raising the necessary funds to be competitive or being able to win in states outside the South were answered when signs of strong financial support materialized and when polls showed me winning in states like Pennsylvania, Maine, and even New Jersey. That kind of shattered the notion that I was only a regional candidate or only supported by social conservatives.

I had not done much toward a race because my life was filled with work that I truly love here at Fox News, doing radio commentaries on my daily Huckabee Report on 600 radio stations, traveling the country for speaking engagements, and helping good conservative, pro-life candidates who were running for office. Other people probably thought about it more than I did.

I don’t have an issue with my family being supportive. My wife actually encouraged me to do it, despite knowing full well it would subject her and the rest of the family to brutal and savage personal attacks. My adult children have also made it clear they would be with me no matter what.

When people asked me what it would take for me to run, I would tell them the same thing—pray for me to have clarity in the decision. I don’t expect everyone to understand this, but I’m a believer and follower of Jesus Christ. That relationship is far more important to me than any political office. For me, the decision is ultimately not a political one, a financial one, or even a practical one —it’s a spiritual one.

The past few weeks, the external signs and signals and answers to many of the obstacles point strongly toward running. When I am with people encouraging me to run, it’s easy to feel the strength of their partnership and commitment to help me to the finish line. Only when I was alone, in quiet and reflective moments did I have not only clarity, but an inexplicable inner peace—a peace that exceeds human understanding. All the factors say GO, but my heart says NO. And that is the decision I have made and in it have finally found resolution. I don’t fully understand it myself—but I’m sure the pundits will. But I know that under the best of circumstances, being President is a job that takes one to the limit of his or her human capacity. For me, to do it apart from an inner confidence that I was undertaking it with God’s full blessing is unthinkable. I can’t know or predict the future, but I know for now my answer is clear and firm. I will not seek the Republican nomination for President this year. I will gladly continue doing what I do and helping others in their campaigns for Congress, governorships, and other positions. I’ll certainly give more detail about this decision in due time and especially to those who have faithfully and so sacrificially been part of the process. I know I will deeply disappoint many people I love. So many good and dear people have put forth extraordinary effort without any assurance I would mount a campaign. It pains me to let them down. I also know my decision will delight just as many who aren’t that fond of me. I am eternally grateful for the faithful support of my wife, children and real friends who promised to stand with me no matter what. I had come to believe I would be in the race for President. I won’t be. But I will for sure be re-dedicating myself to standing for and communicating the principles of common sense, Constitutional government, and civil discourse that I believe are critical to the survival of our great Republic. From New York, This is MH, goodnight God bless, and I’ll be back next week.

Kate Middleton and Prince William: Marriage made in Heaven? (Part 25)

photo

The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh with Philippa Middleton

The Queen, The Duke of Edinburgh and Philippa Middleton appear on the balcony of Buckingham Palace, following the marriage of Prince William and Catherine Middleton in Westminster Abbey, 29 April 2011.

I really do wish Kate and William success in their marriage.  Nevertheless, I do not think it is best to live together before marriage like they did, and I am writing this series to help couples see how best to prepare for marriage.

Albert Mohler wrote an excellent article, ” ‘The Cohabitation Trap’–Why Marriage Matters,” August 16, 2005 and I  wanted to post a portion of it everyday and here is part 4:

What should Christians think of this research?

In the first place, the social evidence as indicated in this research demonstrates what happens when sex and intimacy are decoupled from marriage. In a profound way, this research affirms the integrity of marriage as an institution and should serve to remind Christians that sexual intimacy prior to marriage can only serve to undermine the integrity of the institution and the vows that hold it together. When access to sex is liberated from the responsibilities and commitments of marriage, marriage is inevitably redefined as an option.

 

The very fact that couples who cohabit before marriage have less satisfactory marriages than those who did not points to the basic goodness of marriage and to the importance of marriage as an institution central to human health, happiness, and wholeness.

Wartik gets to the heart of the issue when she suggests that many persons “have different standards for living partners than for life partners.” In essence, that’s the problem. The biblical understanding of marriage begins with the presupposition that life partners and living partners should be one and the same. To suggest otherwise is to miss the entire point of marriage. When Amato explains, “People are much fussier about whom they marry than whom they cohabitate with,” this point is made in vivid terms.

Christians do not base our understanding of marriage and cohabitation on sociological research. Our Creator has defined marriage for us and commanded respect for marriage as a central human responsibility. We know that cohabitation is injurious to marriage precisely because it violates God’s command that sex and marriage are never to be separated. Nevertheless, an article like this serves to remind us that human experience does prove the truthfulness of God’s Word. When the world of social science comes face to face with the reality that cohabitation undermines marriage, the church should take notice.

_________________________________________________

R. Albert Mohler, Jr. is president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. For more articles and resources by Dr. Mohler, and for information on The Albert Mohler Program, a daily national radio program broadcast on the Salem Radio Network, go to www.albertmohler.com . For information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to www.sbts.edu . Send feedback to mail@albertmohler.com .

Tim Hawkins on Parenting

Adrian Rogers – Simplicity of Salvation (4 4)

Here’s a couple who went to a FamilyLife Conference and how it made a difference in their marriage.

Monarchy: The Royal Family at Work_Part 7 of 7

________________________________________

Candidate #4,Congressman Ron Paul: Republican Presidential Hopefuls (Part 4)(A Night with Ron Paul Part C)

Pt 3/6 Ron Paul  4/15/11 CSPAN

Robert Wenzel, Editor & Publisher of the Economy Policy Journal wrote a fine article “On the road with Ron Paul,” May 2, 2011. I will be posting portions of that article the next few days. Here is the third part:

We went on to discuss the current state of the dollar, price inflation and so on. I found his understanding of markets remarkably sophisticated. At one point, he said to me, “You know, these markets can all very rapidly just take off and the dollar can collapse and prices climb very rapidly.” For emphasis, he moved his hand horizontal and then quickly vertical.

In my many years of trading and talking to investors, one of the most difficult concepts to get across is how quickly markets can change and move dramatically. Most people tend to think of investments as trading within ranges or a slow move in one direction or another, not quite realizing that the moves at times can become very spectacular. Ron Paul seemed to understand this possibility very clearly.

I’ve written before that in watching the way Fed Chairman Bernanke deals with the money supply that he does not appear to have a lot of experience trading stocks. He seems to react to market moves at odd times. Ron Paul, on the other hand, seems to have a trader’s understanding of the markets, and an in depth understanding of how quickly markets can change.

At one point, Dr. Paul speculated with me as to how much Bernanke understood the tight box he is in, with the potential for serious price inflation, on the one hand, and the alternative being very high interest rates to stop the inflation. Dr. Paul said to me, “You know he may believe that it’s not as if he can say what he is exactly thinking, since if he really understood the problems, and said so, the markets would react dramatically.”

As we talked, he told me that interest rates may climb a lot quicker than Bernanke and other Fed members expect, because of the price inflation that is likely.

Taliban visited Osama bin Laden at his hideout in the past

A still from a bin Laden video released by the US Department of Defense. The al-Qaeda leader was visited in Pakistan by representatives of the Taliban.

Osama bin Laden

Source: Reuters
Published: Friday, May 25, 2007 7:34 AEST

Saudi-born militant Osama bin Laden speaks at a news conference in Afghanistan on May 26, 1998.

Osama bin Laden

 

Osama Bin Laden Hiding Place Visited By Taliban the London Telegraph reported today:

 

The revelation that the al-Qaeda chief had direct contact with his followers – and did not rely solely on messengers – came as a US-led task force urgently trawled captured documents and computer files for terror plots and information about extremists.

British intelligence agents last week joined their US counterparts to sift through the material after repeated references to Britain were found in the haul retrieved from bin Laden’s compound when US commandos killed him this month.

An Afghan Taliban commander, who has previously provided reliable information to foreign media, disclosed that he had visited bin Laden at the compound in Abbottabad.

He said that the Saudi terror chief also received sporadic visits from leaders of his al-Qaeda network, Taliban allies and fellow Arab fundraisers.

The disclosure will be crucial for Western intelligence chiefs as they try and assess bin Laden’s role in international terror operations. They had initially believed that his contact with the outside world was conducted via messages on computer thumb drives.

When the commander, who asked not to be named, last saw bin Laden in Abbottabad two years ago, he seemed healthy and well briefed on recent developments, but concerned about his safety and money.

Bin Laden confided that he had to continue to meet top aides because so many senior lieutenants had been captured or killed. “He said he had no choice but to be active and meet people, despite the security risks,” the Taliban leader said. “He was meeting with other top al Qaeda leaders who could get access to Abbottabad without endangering their safety.”

The report will once again focus attention on how bin Laden managed to live apparently undetected by the Pakistani authorities for several years less than a mile from the country’s top military academy.

The Sunday Telegraph has learned that Britain was one of six countries – along with the US, Canada, Israel, Germany and Spain – identified as a target for terror strikes in the intelligence haul. Officials did not disclose specific plots or threats.

As US and European domestic security officials step up counter-terror operations amid concerns of a “lone wolf” or terror cell revenge attacks to avenge bin Laden’s killing, Pakistans intelligence services have withdrawn co-operation with their American counterparts.

Agents with the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) directorate are refusing to share details of suspects or plots in protest at the US operation to kill bin Laden, raising the potential threat of attacks on Western cities.

On Saturday the country’s parliament condemned the raid, calling for a review of ties with America and warning that Pakistan could cut supply lines to US forces in Afghanistan if there were more such operations.

• Three people in the American state of Florida have been charged with providing financing and material support to the Pakistani Taliban, US federal officials said yesterday.

Mike Huckabee not running for President

undefined

Huckabee Opts Out According to Fox News tonight: 


Mike Huckabee said Saturday there would be no sequel to his surprisingly strong 2008 White House bid, in which he won the Iowa Republican caucus and finished second in the primaries to Sen. John McCain.

“All the factors say go, but my heart says no,” Huckabee, who was considered the GOP frontrunner in several national polls, said on his Fox News Channel show.

Before his announcement Saturday night, Huckabee hadn’t shared his decision with his closest advisers.

Many of those advisers predicted Huckabee wouldn’t run.

Ed Rollins, who was Huckabee’s national campaign chairman for the 2008 campaign, said he expected this decision after Huckabee had broken off communications with him about a week ago.

But as late as Saturday morning, Huckabee wouldn’t tip his hand even when asked about Rollin’s statement.

“I haven’t even told my executive producer of the show tonight what the decision is,” Huckabee said on “Fox and Friends.”

“That’s kind of refreshing because for the last several months they’ve all known,” he said when asked about predictions by political insiders that he wouldn’t run. “They’ve either known for sure that I was or for sure that I wasn’t, when even I wasn’t sure. Now that I’m sure they admit they don’t know.”

In the end, Huckabee decided that he didn’t want to abandon the media empire that he has built since his failed presidential bid four years ago. In addition to his TV show, Huckabee hosts a nationally syndicated radio program, gives paid speeches around the country and has even launched a series of animated videos for children on American history.

The talk show is the centerpiece of Huckabee’s enterprises, which have made the one-time Baptist preacher from Hope, Ark., and 10-year governor a wealthy man with a $2.2 million beachfront home under construction in Florida. Huckabee, 55, and his wife moved their residency and voter registration to the state last year.

Rollins and other advisers have said Huckabee could enter the race with a frontrunner status he didn’t have as a former governor fresh out of office in 2008. But another Huckabee run would bring renewed scrutiny over his support of some tax increases in Arkansas and his record on clemency — including commuting the sentence of a man who later killed four Seattle-area police officers.

Huckabee demurred when asked on Fox whether he felt an obligation to run.

“The obligation is to love your country and serve it the best way you can. If that’s being a candidate, then yes. If it’s maybe in another role, maybe that’s it,” Huckabee said.

Mike Hukabee will not run, Richard Land predicts today on his radio show

Huckabee Seriously Considering 2012 Run; Says Obama Will be Tough to Beat

I heard Richard Land predict today on his radio show that Mike Huckabee will not run for President this time around. (You can listen to his prediction here.)

Richard Land has known Mike Huckabee since 1980 when Huckabee was a Southern Baptist pastor in Arkansas. Who is Richard Land? Princeton (A.B., magna cum laude) and Oxford (D.Phil.) educated, Dr. Richard Land has served as president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission since 1988. During his tenure as representative for the largest Protestant denomination in the country, Dr. Land has represented Southern Baptist and other Evangelicals’ concerns in the halls of Congress, before U.S. Presidents, and in the media.

In 2005, Dr. Land was featured in Time Magazine as one of The Twenty-five Most Influential Evangelicals in America.

As host of For Faith & Family and Richard Land LIVE!, two nationally syndicated radio programs, Dr. Land speaks passionately and authoritatively on the social, ethical, and public policy issues facing our country. Listeners can hear these broadcasts on over 500 radio stations across the country and on-demand on the Internet.

Jason Tolbert discusses the things that Huckabee is considering on his blog today. Here is a portion below:

As I see it, there are two possibilities. First, he will announce that he will not run for President in 2012. Or second, he will announce that he is leaving Fox News to explore the possibility of running for President. I don’t think he will officially make his final announcement tonight but if he gives up the show, it means he is running. Although most are predicting he will not run, a strong case can be made for either position. Let examine each one.

Balanced Budget Amendment the answer? Boozman says yes, Pryor no, Part 23 (Milton Friedman tells us how to stay free Part 2)

Photo detail

Steve Brawner in his article “Safer roads and balanced budgets,” Arkansas News Bureau, April 13, 2011, noted:

The disagreement is over the solutions — on what spending to cut; what taxes to raise (basically none ever, according to Boozman); whether or not to enact a balanced budget amendment (Boozman says yes; Pryor no); and on what policies would promote the kind of economic growth that would make this a little easier.

I am going to continue this series and mainly include the opinions of Milton Friedman concerning these matters. Today I have included some comments from Milton Friedman from his Film Series “Free to Choose: Episode 10 How to Stay Free,” which addresses several issues concerning how to control our spending.  This is part 2 of this series concerning Milton Friedman’s thoughts from this video clip. 

Friedman: Criminal tax evasion in Britain, laws and regulations defied in the U.S. It’s nothing to celebrate. The hopeful thing is that throughout the free world the public is coming to recognize the dangers of big government and is taking steps to control it. But it will be no easy task to cut government down to size. Today in country after country the strongest special interest has become the entrenched bureaucracy. Whether at the national or at the local level. In addition, each of us gets special benefits from one or another governmental program. The temptation is to try to cut down government at someone else’s expense while retaining our own special privileges. That was a stalemate. The right approach is to tackle head on the explosive growth in government spending. Lets give the government a budget the way each of us has a budget. A movement in this direction is already underway in the U.S. with the many proposals for Constitutional Amendments limiting government spending. Several states have already adopted such an amendment. There is strong pressure for a similar amendment at the federal level. Those amendments would force government to operate within a strict budget. Each special interest would have to compete with other special interests for a larger share of a fixed pie instead of all of them being able to join forces at the expense of the taxpayer.

This is an important step, but it is only a first step. No piece of paper by itself can solve our problems for us.

Kate Middleton and Prince William: Marriage made in Heaven? (Part 24)

Prince William and Kate moved in together about a year ago. In this clip above the commentator suggested that maybe Prince Charles and Princess Diana would not have divorced if they had lived together before marriage. Actually Diana was a virgin, and it was Charles’ uncle (Louis Mountbatten) that gave him the advice that he should seek to marry a virgin.

I really do wish Kate and William success in their marriage.  Nevertheless, I do not think it is best to live together before marriage like they did, and I am writing this series to help couples see how best to prepare for marriage.

Albert Mohler wrote an excellent article, ” ‘The Cohabitation Trap’–Why Marriage Matters,” August 16, 2005 and I  wanted to post a portion of it everyday and here is part 3:

Making an observation that would seem obvious to many readers, Wartik suggests that cohabitating couples “may just be less traditional people–less likely to stay in an unhappy marriage in observance of religious beliefs or for the sake of appearances.” Interestingly, William Pinsof, president of the Family Institute at Northwestern University argues, “Those who choose to live together before getting married have a different attitude about marriage to begin with. I think cohabiting is a reflection of that, not a cause of higher divorce rates.”

Wartik describes the debate over cohabitation as “partly a rehash of the values and morals conflicts that tend to become political footballs in America today.” Nevertheless, she insists that all parties must agree that cohabitation is often injurious to children. “Cohabitating relationships, by their nature, appear to be less fulfilling than marital relationships,” she argues. People who cohabit say they are less satisfied and more likely to feel depressed, the result, perhaps, of “the inherent lack of stability” in cohabitating relationships. Wartik then asserts, “As a result, cohabitation is not an ideal living arrangement for children. Emotionally or academically, the children of cohabiters just don’t do as well, on average, as those with two married parents, and money doesn’t fully explain the difference.”

Nancy Wartik concludes her article by suggesting ways that cohabitation can be made less injurious to marriage. Specifically, she suggests that couples should not cohabitate until they have settled the marriage question, preferably by a formal engagement prior to living together.

__________________________

Tim Hawkins – Holding Hands

Adrian Rogers – Simplicity of Salvation (3 4)

Monarchy: The Royal Family at Work_Part 6 of 7

 Official royal wedding photo of Prince William, Kate Middleton and childrenOfficial royal wedding photos of Prince William and Kate Middleton -– now the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge — were released on Saturday.

The couple, all smiles for the camera, couldn’t look happier.

Candidate #4,Congressman Ron Paul: Republican Presidential Hopefuls (Part 3)(A Night with Ron Paul Part B)

Pt 2/6 Ron Paul  4/15/11 CSPAN

Robert Wenzel, Editor & Publisher of the Economy Policy Journal wrote a fine article “On the road with Ron Paul,” May 2, 2011. I will be posting portions of that article the next few days. Here is the second part:

On Thursday, he landed in Reno, Nevada for the speech at the University of Nevada-Reno. He told me that he was excited to see a crowd of between 600 and 700 in attendance for his speech.

He told me the event was organized by the Young Americans for Liberty, and he seemed very excited about the work they are doing across the country. He also pointed out how well organized the Reno event was, which was coordinated by YAL Southwest Regional Director Adam Weinberg.

We then went on to discuss the economy. He told me that he again planned to propose a bill that would specifically call for the auditing of the Treasury holdings of gold at Fort Knox.

He also told me that he may propose a bill that calls for the prevention of the Federal Reserve from buying Treasury securities and other assets. This could be his best idea ever. It would, of course, halt the Federal Reserve’s ability to print money and, thus, halt the price inflation that is caused by Fed increases in the money supply. It would also prevent the Fed from shoveling money to Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan and the like.

Kate Middleton and Prince William: Marriage made in Heaven? (Part 23)

I really do wish Kate and William success in their marriage.  Nevertheless, I do not think it is best to live together before marriage like they did, and I am writing this series to help couples see how best to prepare for marriage.

Albert Mohler wrote an excellent article, ” ‘The Cohabitation Trap’–Why Marriage Matters,” August 16, 2005 and I  wanted to post a portion of it everyday and here is part 2:

Cohabitation prior to marriage serves to undermine, rather than to strengthen the marital bond. Here’s how Wartik summarizes the research: “Couples who move in together before marriage have up to two times the odds of divorce, as compared with couples who marry before living together. Moreover, married couples who have lived together before exchanging vows tend to have poorer-quality marriages than couples who moved in after the wedding. Those who cohabited first report less satisfaction, more arguing, poorer communication and lower levels of commitment.”

Social scientists are alarmed at these findings. Some now believe that cohabitation before marriage undermines the very notion of commitment. As Wartik explains, “The precautions we take to ensure marriage is right for us may wind up working against us.” 

There seem to be two major theories offered as explanations for this phenomenon. Wartik describes the “reigning explanation” as “the inertia hypothesis.” This theory suggests “that many of us slide into marriage without ever making an explicit decision to commit. We move in together, we get comfortable, and pretty soon marriage starts to seem like the path of least resistance. Even if the relationship is only tolerable, the next stage seems to be inevitable.”

The inertia theory suggests that marriage just “happens” to couples who have been cohabitating for some time. Paul Amato, a professor at Penn State University, suggests, “There’s an inevitable pressure that creates momentum towards marriage . . . . I’ve talked to many cohabiting couples and they’ll say, ‘My mother was so unhappy until I told her we were getting married–and then she was so relieved.'” Amato also suggests that issues like shared financial arrangements and shared offspring also build the momentum towards marriage.

The inertia theory may offer considerable insight into the way cohabiting men understand marriage. Some researchers suggest that cohabitating men demonstrate a high level of uncertainty about the relationship and bring that same uncertainty into marriage. Wartik cites a 2004 study by psychologist Scott Stanley that found “that men who had lived with their spouse premaritally were on average less committed to their marriages than those who hadn’t.”

The other major theory suggests that the experience of cohabitation itself weakens the marital bond. As Amato explains, “A couple of studies show that when couples cohabit, they tend to adopt less conventional beliefs about marriage and divorce, and it tends to make them less religious.” As Wartik expands the idea: “That could translate, once married, to a greater willingness to consider options that are traditionally frowned upon–like saying ‘so long’ to an ailing marriage.”

______________________________

Benefits of Attending a Weekend to Remember

Adrian Rogers – Simplicity of Salvation (2 4)

Tim Hawkins talks about Moms

Monarchy: The Royal Family at Work_Part 5 of 7

April 30, 2011 |  2:33 pm
 

Official royal wedding photo of Prince William, Kate Middleton and family