Category Archives: Mike Huckabee

John Brummett :Glad the Fayetteville Finger died, but will there be lots of little Fayetteville Fingers? (Part 22)

John Brummett in his article, “It’s a ‘little-bitty controversy,” Arkansas News Bureau, May 26, 2011 noted:

The Republicans said that “even left-leaning columnist John Brummett” had said on Roby Brock’s Talk Business show Sunday night that, conceivably, the Democratic dominance of this board could result in new state House and Senate districts that would include a whole bunch of “little bitty Fayetteville Fingers.”

In the first place: What does the word “even” mean in that construction? Is it that “even that idiot in the newspaper” sees it our way? Why, then, covet an alliance with an idiot?

In the second place, “left-leaning,” to which I’ll admit more days than not, applies to matters of philosophy, not to knee-jerk partisan matters of procedural behavior in drawing of district maps.

There is no left-leaning position on mapping, which would help explain why I found so offensive that “Fayetteville Finger,” by which Democrats wanted to redraw state legislative districts to carve Fayetteville out of the 3rd District and attach it conspicuously to the 4th.

There can be a party position on legislative districts, you see, but not a philosophical position — beyond, that is, righteous indignation over gerrymandering, whatever its partisan persuasion….

The eventual issue here — the one to which I alluded by invoking potential little-bitty Fayetteville Fingers — is whether Beebe and McDaniel can be sufficiently deft and subtle. The Fayetteville Finger was a brazen overreach, the mapping of which revealed its own heavy-handedness.

So let us take a few deep breaths and wait for Beebe and McDaniel to show us what they have in the desk drawer. Brazen overreaching and heavy-handedness — those, if evident, will be cause for Republican whining. Even a left-leaning columnist would agree.

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.

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.

The drama builds on Huckabee running, latest guess is no, but we know Saturday night for sure!!

View Image

John Brummett in his article “Huckabee might run to stay on tv,” May 10, 2011, Arkansas News Bureau, noted:

He does not want to be president. He did not even want to be governor. He wants to gab; he wants to get paid by the word; he wants his own microphone and camera; he wants an adapted Falwell-Robertson kind of appeal; he wants to put out pamphlets and call them books; he wants stuff.

In his article “Huckabee isn’t running,” April 24, 2011, Arkansas News Bureau, Steve Brawner observed:

Huckabee isn’t lying when he says that he won’t decide until this summer. There is still a part of him that hasn’t shut the door. But he’s leaning strongly enough against the idea that he is comfortable with building this big house.

Jason Tolbert reported:

KATV’s Scott Inman sat down for an extended segment with Gov. Huckabee today on which aired tonight in central Arkansas.  In it, he sounds like he is inching closer to a decision to run.

Max Brantley in March noted:

I think Mike Huckabee is going to run for president, but I think he’s going to finesse the decision as long as possible to hang onto the money he makes as a non-candidate with his radio show (now on 560 stations) and his show on Fox News, which recently booted two commentators who’ve made not much more presidential noise than Huckabee.

Today Tolbert noted:

Huckabee plans some sort of “major announcement” on his show on Saturday. What is it? No one will say but Ed Rollins the man who would likely be his campaign manage is sounding like he thinks Huckabee is leaning toward not running.

Fox News just posted this.

Will he or won’t he make a run for the White House? The Gov. gives his answer LIVE on Huckabee, Saturday at 8p ET.

Plus, Ted Nugent on America’s fight against terrorism at home and overseas.

 

Where do I stand on this? I think Huckabee will probably not run. I earlier thought that he would run and I knew that he could always come back to Fox later and get his job back.However, I heard John Fund of the Wall Street Journal speak the other day and he commented that when people like the liberal President Obama are in control, it makes his job so much more easy. The subjects for the articles are handed to him on a platter by Obama everyday. I think the same is true for Huckabee and his show.

Mike Huckabee to Osama bin Laden: “Welcome to Hell” (Part 8)Woody Allen’s movie “Crimes and Misdemeanors” is a perfect example of why hell the only “enforcement factor”

Crimes & Misdemeanors (pictured is Judah and his criminal brother, ultimately his brother hires a hitman to take out Judah’s girlfriend who threatens to turn Judah over to the cops)

Crimes & Misdemeanors

Crimes And Misdemeanors 1989 9/13

Adrian Rogers – Crossing God’s Deadline Part 4

crimes & misdemeanors

Best scene of the movie!!!!

_________________________________

John Brummett in his article “Huckabee speaks for bad guy below,” Arkansas News Bureau, May 5, 2011 had to say:

Are we supposed to understand and accept that Mike Huckabee is in hell where he has official duties as a greeter,welcoming Osama bin-Laden?

We all suspect strongly, of course, that bin-Laden will spend eternity in hell, whatever his form and whatever hell’s. But we should not embrace a politician’s seeking electoral gain by dictating and announcing after-life dispositions. Those we should defer to a higher power, whose divine authority no mortal man should dare usurp, even for TV ratings or votes, or both.

I really am uncomfortable with all this kind of lighthearted talk about hell. The traditional Christian view of hell is a very serious doctrine. It is a necessary doctrine and today I want to show why.

I recently read a great article  “Hell:The Horrible Choice,” by Patrick Zukeran of Probe Ministries. Here is a portion:

 Why Hell Is Necessary and Just

Is hell necessary? How is this doctrine consistent with a God of love? These are questions I face when I speak on the fate of unbelievers. The necessity and justice of hell can be recognized when we understand the nature of God and the nature of man.

Hell is necessary because God’s justice requires it. Our culture focuses mostly on God’s nature of love, mercy, and grace. However, God is also just and holy, and this must be kept in balance. Justice demands retribution, the distribution of rewards and punishments in a fair way. God’s holiness demands that He separate himself entirely from sin and evil (Habakkuk 1:13). The author of Psalm 73 struggles with the dilemma of the suffering of the righteous and the prosperity of the wicked. Joseph Stalin was responsible for the death of millions in the Soviet Union, but he died peacefully in his sleep without being punished for his deeds. Since evil often goes unpunished in this lifetime, it must be dealt with at a future time to fulfill God’s justice and holiness.

.
Below you will find a discussion by Anton Scamvougeras on the Movie “Crimes and Misdemeanors.” I think he does a good job of describing everyone’s position in the plot and their worldviews. There are two main problems with his comments. First, in part one he calls Judah a “lazy theist.” Actually he was raised a theist and left his theism behind in college when he became an agnostic or atheist.

Later after having his former girlfriend killed he is convicted by his God-given conscience that he will pay for his sin. His theological views change for a couple of weeks and then when he is not caught his atheism returns for good.

Why did Judah feel guilt? In the Bible Romans chapter one clearly points out that God has revealed Himself through both the created world around us  and also in a God-given conscience that testifies to each person that God exists.
These are the exact two places mentioned by the scripture   Romans 1:18-20 (Amplified version)  

18For God’s [holy] wrath and indignation are revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who in their wickedness repress and hinder the truth and make it inoperative.

    19For that which is known about God is evident to them and made plain in their inner consciousness, because God [Himself] has shown it to them.

    20For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made (His handiworks). So [men] are without excuse [altogether without any defense or justification].  

What Judah does is reject his conscience and the result was that he embraced his selfish desires. That is also described in this same passage in Romans in the two following verses: 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools.  

There is a second problem with the commentary by Anton Scamvougeras. He describes the Godless universe that Allen has pictured as excruciating or exhilarating. The problem I have is the excuse by some people that they do not see the full ramifications of embracing a “Godless universe.” The word “excruciating” is the proper description of that reality. How can the word “exhilarating” be used? Solomon showed us in the first 11 chapters of Ecclesiastes what the world “under the sun” without God in the picture looks like and it forces one to embrace nihilism. (See previous post on this about Solomon’s search.) However, the atheist has to live in the world that God made with the conscience that God gave him. This creates a tension. The agnostic Carl Sagan felt the tension too.

 What does Dr. Sagan have Dr. Arroway say at the end of the movie Contact when she is testifying before Congress about the alien that  communicated with her? See if you can pick out the one illogical word in her statement: “I was given a vision how tiny, insignificant, rare and precious we all are. We belong to something that is greater than ourselves and none of us are alone.”  

Dr Sagan deep down knew that we are special so he could not avoid putting the word “precious” in there. Francis Schaeffer said unbelievers are put in a place of tension when they have to live in the world that God has made because deep down they know they are special because God has put that knowledge in their hearts.We are not the result of survival of the fittest and headed back to the dirt forevermore.

I would love to hear from any atheist that would present a case for lasting meaning in life apart from God. It seems to me that H. J. Blackham was right in his accessment of the predictament that atheists face:

On humanist assumptions [the assumption that there is no God and life has evolved by time and chance alone], life leads to nothing, and every pretense that it does not is a deceit. If there is a bridge over a gorge which spans only half the distance and ends in mid-air, and if the bridge is crowded with human beings pressing on, one after another they fall into the abyss. The bridge leads to nowhere, and those who are pressing forward to cross it are going nowhere. . . It does not matter where they think they are going, what preparations for the journey they may have made, how much they may be enjoying it all . . . such a situation is a model of futility (H. J. Blackham et al., Objections to Humanism (Riverside, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1967).)

Woody Allen’s film does a great job of showing the need for the “enforcement factor.” One reviewer made it sound like the movie was unrealistic and Judah could have smoothtalked his way out of this. However, Woody Allen anticipated this objection and that is why he threw in the illegal financial dealings of Judah that his former girlfriend knew about. Now instead of just losing his marriage he may have to go to jail.

Enjoy the clips below and let me know what you think.

Crimes and Misdemeanors: A Discussion: Part 1

Crimes and Misdemeanors: A Discussion: Part 2

Crimes and Misdemeanors: A Discussion: Part 3

Part 3 of 3: ‘Is Woody Allen A Romantic Or A Realist?’

A discussion of Woody Allen’s 1989 movie, Crimes and Misdemeanors

Mike Huckabee to Osama bin Laden: “Welcome to Hell” (Part 7)Woody Allen’s movie “Crimes and Misdemeanors” is a perfect example of why hell the only “enforcement factor”

Crimes And Misdemeanors 1989 7/13

Adrian Rogers – Crossing God’s Deadline Part 3

Crimes And Misdemeanors 1989 8/13

John Brummett in his article “Huckabee speaks for bad guy below,” Arkansas News Bureau, May 5, 2011 had to say:

Are we supposed to understand and accept that Mike Huckabee is in hell where he has official duties as a greeter,welcoming Osama bin-Laden?

We all suspect strongly, of course, that bin-Laden will spend eternity in hell, whatever his form and whatever hell’s. But we should not embrace a politician’s seeking electoral gain by dictating and announcing after-life dispositions. Those we should defer to a higher power, whose divine authority no mortal man should dare usurp, even for TV ratings or votes, or both.

I really am uncomfortable with all this kind of lighthearted talk about hell. The traditional Christian view of hell is a very serious doctrine. It is a necessary doctrine and today I want to show why.

Three thousand years ago, Solomon took a look at life “under the sun” in his book of Ecclesiastes. Christian scholar Ravi Zacharias has noted, “The key to understanding the Book of Ecclesiastes is the term ‘under the sun.’ What that literally means is you lock God out of a closed system, and you are left with only this world of time plus chance plus matter.”

This is the exact thing that Woody Allen does in the movie “Crimes and Misdemeanors.” He envisions a world without God.

Let me show you some inescapable conclusions if you choose to live without God in the picture. Solomon came to these same conclusions when he looked at life “under the sun.”

  1. Death is the great equalizer (Eccl 3:20, “All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return.”)
  2. Chance and time have determined the past, and they will determine the future.  (Ecclesiastes 9:11-13 “I have seen something else under the sun:  The race is not to the swift
       or the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise
       or wealth to the brilliant  or favor to the learned; but time and chance happen to them all.  Moreover, no one knows when their hour will come: As fish are caught in a cruel net,
       or birds are taken in a snare, so people are trapped by evil times  that fall unexpectedly upon them.”)
  3. Power reigns in this life, and the scales are not balanced(Eccl 4:1; “Again I looked and saw all the oppression that was taking place under the sun: I saw the tears of the oppressed—
       and they have no comforter; power was on the side of their oppressors—  and they have no comforter.” 7:15 “In this meaningless life of mine I have seen both of these: the righteous perishing in their righteousness,  and the wicked living long in their wickedness. ).
  4. Nothing in life gives true satisfaction without God including knowledge (1:16-18), ladies and liquor (2:1-3, 8, 10, 11), and great building projects (2:4-6, 18-20).

_______________________

Power reigns in this life and the scales are not balanced.

Solomon comes to the realization that powers reigns in this life and the scales are not balanced. Solomon notes, “Again, I observed all the oppression that takes place under the sun. I saw the tears of the oppressed, with no one to comfort them. The oppressors have great power, and their victims are helpless. (Ecclesiastes 4:1).  

People that believe there is no afterlife must concede that Hitler will never face the due punishment for his acts. I am a big Woody Allen movie fan and no other movie better demonstrates Ecclesiastes 4:1 better than the movie CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS because the character Judah was able to get away with murder and in the end of the movie does not fear that God will punish him. 

If you do not have God in the picture then you must come to the same conclusions that Solomon came to and Woody Allen shows that very clearly in his film.

By the way, the final chapter of Ecclesiastes finishes with Solomon emphasizing that serving God is the only proper response of man. Solomon looks above the sun and brings God back into the picture.  I am hoping that Woody Allen will also come to that same conclusion that Solomon came to concerning the meaning of life and man’s proper place in the universe in Ecclesiastes 12:13-14:
13 Now all has been heard;
       here is the conclusion of the matter:
       Fear God and keep his commandments,
       for this is the whole duty of man.

 14 For God will bring every deed into judgment,
       including every hidden thing,
       whether it is good or evil

This is the same conclusion that the article  “Hell:The Horrible Choice,” by Patrick Zukeran of Probe Ministries comes to. Here is a portion:

 Why Hell Is Necessary and Just

Is hell necessary? How is this doctrine consistent with a God of love? These are questions I face when I speak on the fate of unbelievers. The necessity and justice of hell can be recognized when we understand the nature of God and the nature of man.

Hell is necessary because God’s justice requires it. Our culture focuses mostly on God’s nature of love, mercy, and grace. However, God is also just and holy, and this must be kept in balance. Justice demands retribution, the distribution of rewards and punishments in a fair way. God’s holiness demands that He separate himself entirely from sin and evil (Habakkuk 1:13). The author of Psalm 73 struggles with the dilemma of the suffering of the righteous and the prosperity of the wicked. Joseph Stalin was responsible for the death of millions in the Soviet Union, but he died peacefully in his sleep without being punished for his deeds. Since evil often goes unpunished in this lifetime, it must be dealt with at a future time to fulfill God’s justice and holiness.

Notes1. Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, Handbook of Christian Apologetics (Downers Grove, IL.: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 282.
2. Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian (New York: Touchstone Books, 1957), 17 – 18.
3. Charles Darwin, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, ed. Nora Darwin Barlow, with original omissions restored (N.Y.: W. W. Norton, 1993), 87.
4. C. S. Lewis, Screwtape Letters (New York: Macmillan), 69.

 

Mike Huckabee to Osama bin Laden: “Welcome to Hell” (Part 6)Woody Allen’s movie “Crimes and Misdemeanors” is a perfect example of why hell the only “enforcement factor”

Crimes and Misdemeanors: A Discussion: Part 1

Adrian Rogers – Crossing God’s Deadline Part 2

Mike-huckabee-091710jpg-717e34428c62cd01

Jason Tolbert provided this recent video from Mike Huckabee:

John Brummett in his article “Huckabee speaks for bad guy below,” Arkansas News Bureau, May 5, 2011 had to say:

Are we supposed to understand and accept that Mike Huckabee is in hell where he has official duties as a greeter,welcoming Osama bin-Laden?

We all suspect strongly, of course, that bin-Laden will spend eternity in hell, whatever his form and whatever hell’s. But we should not embrace a politician’s seeking electoral gain by dictating and announcing after-life dispositions. Those we should defer to a higher power, whose divine authority no mortal man should dare usurp, even for TV ratings or votes, or both.

I really am uncomfortable with all this kind of lighthearted talk about hell. The traditional Christian view of hell is a very serious doctrine. It is a necessary doctrine and today I want to show why.

The next few days I will be posting portions of the article “Hell:The Horrible Choice,” by Patrick Zukeran of Probe Ministries. Here is the fifth installment:

 Why Hell Is Necessary and Just

Is hell necessary? How is this doctrine consistent with a God of love? These are questions I face when I speak on the fate of unbelievers. The necessity and justice of hell can be recognized when we understand the nature of God and the nature of man.

Hell is necessary because God’s justice requires it. Our culture focuses mostly on God’s nature of love, mercy, and grace. However, God is also just and holy, and this must be kept in balance. Justice demands retribution, the distribution of rewards and punishments in a fair way. God’s holiness demands that He separate himself entirely from sin and evil (Habakkuk 1:13). The author of Psalm 73 struggles with the dilemma of the suffering of the righteous and the prosperity of the wicked. Joseph Stalin was responsible for the death of millions in the Soviet Union, but he died peacefully in his sleep without being punished for his deeds. Since evil often goes unpunished in this lifetime, it must be dealt with at a future time to fulfill God’s justice and holiness.

Notes1. Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, Handbook of Christian Apologetics (Downers Grove, IL.: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 282.
2. Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian (New York: Touchstone Books, 1957), 17 – 18.
3. Charles Darwin, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, ed. Nora Darwin Barlow, with original omissions restored (N.Y.: W. W. Norton, 1993), 87.
4. C. S. Lewis, Screwtape Letters (New York: Macmillan), 69.Woody Allen’s movie Crimes and Misdemeanors does a great job of showing that if God does not exist then people like Stalin and Hitler were “home free” in that they were never going to be punished for what they did. “Existential subjects to me are still the only subjects worth dealing with. I don’t think that one can aim more deeply than at the so-called existential themes, the spiritual themes.” WOODY ALLEN

Woody Allen’s 1989 movie, CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS , is an excellent icebreaker concerning the need of God while making decisions in the area of personal morality. In this film, Allen attacks his own atheistic view of morality. Martin Landau plays a Jewish eye doctor named Judah Rosenthal raised by a religious father who always told him, “The eyes of God are always upon you.” However, Judah later concludes that God doesn’t exist. He has his mistress (played in the film by Anjelica Huston) murdered because she continually threatened to blow the whistle on his past questionable, probably illegal, business activities. She also attempted to break up Judah ‘s respectable marriage by going public with their two-year affair. Judah struggles with his conscience throughout the remainder of the movie. He continues to be haunted by his father’s words: “The eyes of God are always upon you.” This is a very scary phrase to a young boy, Judah observes. He often wondered how penetrating God’s eyes are.

Later in the film, Judah reflects on the conversation his religious father had with Judah ‘s unbelieving Aunt May at the dinner table many years ago:

“Come on Sol, open your eyes. Six million Jews burned to death by the Nazis, and they got away with it because might makes right,” says aunt May

Sol replies, “May, how did they get away with it?”

Judah asks, “If a man kills, then what?”

Sol responds to his son, “Then in one way or another he will be punished.”

Aunt May comments, “I say if he can do it and get away with it and he chooses not to be bothered by the ethics, then he is home free.”

Judah ‘s final conclusion was that might did make right. He observed that one day, because of this conclusion, he woke up and the cloud of guilt was gone. He was, as his aunt said, “home free.”

Woody Allen has exposed a weakness in his own humanistic view that God is not necessary as a basis for good ethics. There must be an enforcement factor in order to convince Judah not to resort to murder. Otherwise, it is fully to Judah ‘s advantage to remove this troublesome woman from his life.

The Bible tells us, “{God} has also set eternity in the hearts of men…” (Ecclesiastes 3:11 NIV). The secularist calls this an illusion, but the Bible tells us that the idea that we will survive the grave was planted in everyone’s heart by God Himself. Romans 1:19-21 tells us that God has instilled a conscience in everyone that points each of them to Him and tells them what is right and wrong (also Romans 2:14 -15).

It’s no wonder, then, that one of Allen’s fellow humanists would comment, “Certain moral truths — such as do not kill, do not steal, and do not lie — do have a special status of being not just ‘mere opinion’ but bulwarks of humanitarian action. I have no intention of saying, ‘I think Hitler was wrong.’ Hitler WAS wrong.” (Gloria Leitner, “A Perspective on Belief,” THE HUMANIST, May/June 1997, pp. 38-39)

Here Leitner is reasoning from her God-given conscience and not from humanist philosophy. It wasn’t long before she received criticism. Humanist Abigail Ann Martin responded, “Neither am I an advocate of Hitler; however, by whose criteria is he evil?” (THE HUMANIST, September/October 1997, p. 2)

The secularist can only give incomplete answers to these questions: How could you have convinced Judah not to kill? On what basis could you convince Judah it was wrong for him to murder?

As Christians, we would agree with Judah ‘s father that “The eyes of God are always upon us.” Proverbs 5:21 asserts, “For the ways of man are before the eyes of the Lord, and He ponders all his paths.” Revelation 20:12 states, “…And the dead were judged (sentenced) by what they had done (their whole way of feeling and acting, their aims and endeavors) in accordance with what was recorded in the books” (Amplified Version). The Bible is revealed truth from God. It is the basis for our morality. Judah inherited the Jewish ethical values of the Ten Commandments from his father, but, through years of life as a skeptic, his standards had been lowered. Finally, we discover that Judah ‘s secular version of morality does not resemble his father’s biblically-based morality.

Woody Allen’s CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS forces unbelievers to grapple with the logical conclusions of a purely secular morality. It opens a door for Christians to find common ground with those whom they attempt to share Christ; we all have to deal with personal morality issues. However, the secularist has no basis for asserting that Judah is wrong.

Larry King actually mentioned on his show, LARRY KING LIVE, that Chuck Colson had discussed the movie CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS with him. Colson asked King if life was just a Darwinian struggle where the ruthless come out on top. Colson continued, “When we do wrong, is that our only choice? Either live tormented by guilt, or else kill our conscience and live like beasts?” (BREAKPOINT COMMENTARY, “Finding Common Ground,” September 14, 1993)

Later, Colson noted that discussing the movie CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS with King presented the perfect opportunity to tell him about Christ’s atoning work on the cross. Colson believes the Lord is working on Larry King.

(Caution: CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS is rated PG-13. It does include some adult themes.)

Will Huckabee step down from Fox and run for Presidential nomimation? Brummett and Brawner say no, Brantley and Tolbert say it sounds like he will (Part 2)

John Brummett in his article “Huckabee might run to stay on tv,” May 10, 2011, Arkansas News Bureau, noted:

As a Fox News television talent alone, Mike Huckabee is not as compelling as Sean Hannity or as commanding as Bill O’Reilly or even as good-looking as Greta van Susteren…

I remain on record predicting that Huckabee, in the end, will opt not to run for president.

That’s because his ultimate calculation will be that his over-arching career goal, that of ongoing media/show biz personality, can best be pursued by sticking with that career as it exists, even without renewal of the political brand, rather than by risking having to take off four whole years, which would be all the American people could possibly survive, to function as best he might as president of the United States.

He does not want to be president. He did not even want to be governor. He wants to gab; he wants to get paid by the word; he wants his own microphone and camera; he wants an adapted Falwell-Robertson kind of appeal; he wants to put out pamphlets and call them books; he wants stuff.

Might I be wrong in my prediction? Might he run?

His challenge will be finding someone in this Republican field to whom he can be certain of running second.

The best bet seems to be Romney, who, as it happens, is the one rival Huckabee cannot stand. That serves only to compound the ironic predicament.

In his article “Huckabee isn’t running,” April 24, 2011, Arkansas News Bureau, Steve Brawner observed:

Huckabee’s record as governor won’t play as well in 2012, when he would start the race as a contender, as it did in 2008, when he never really threatened to win it. In Arkansas, he raised taxes, created a big government-run health care program called ARKids First, and helped release a lot of convicts from prison, including two really bad guys, Wayne Dumond and Maurice Clemmons, who went on to kill people.

That’s not exactly a record that will win the support of the TEA Party – or of big business types who will back candidates like Romney…

Huckabee isn’t lying when he says that he won’t decide until this summer. There is still a part of him that hasn’t shut the door. But he’s leaning strongly enough against the idea that he is comfortable with building this big house.

Jason Tolbert reported:

KATV’s Scott Inman sat down for an extended segment with Gov. Huckabee today on which aired tonight in central Arkansas.  In it, he sounds like he is inching closer to a decision to run.

Max Brantley in March noted:

I think Mike Huckabee is going to run for president, but I think he’s going to finesse the decision as long as possible to hang onto the money he makes as a non-candidate with his radio show (now on 560 stations) and his show on Fox News, which recently booted two commentators who’ve made not much more presidential noise than Huckabee.

Where do I stand on this? I think Huckabee will probably not run. I earlier thought that he would run and I knew that he could always come back to Fox later and get his job back.However, I heard John Fund of the Wall Street Journal speak the other day and he commented that when people like the liberal President Obama are in control, it makes his job so much more easy. The subjects for the articles are handed to him on a platter by Obama everyday. I think the same is true for Huckabee and his show. I think that Brummett and Brawner are right. In other words, Huckabee is having too good of a time making fun of Obama and he knows he is serving the conservative cause by getting the truth out there on the air every week. Ronald Reagan said that liberalism has always failed whenever it is tried, and Huckabee has an abundance of Obama’s mistakes to make fun of everyday on his show. The comedy material is just too much to say no to!!!!

Mike Huckabee to Osama bin Laden: “Welcome to Hell” (Part 5)

Mike Huckabee

Picture of former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee

Adrian Rogers – Crossing God’s Deadline. Part 1

John Brummett in his article “Huckabee speaks for bad guy below,” Arkansas News Bureau, May 5, 2011 had to say:

Are we supposed to understand and accept that Mike Huckabee is in hell where he has official duties as a greeter,welcoming Osama bin-Laden?

Let us resist the evil urge to say it all makes sense — that the Big Huckster would be in that location and that Lucifer would have tabbed him for special responsibilities on account of his gift of gab.

But no one — absolutely no one — could possibly compete in the grandstanding sweepstakes with the tacky Floridian, meaning the second-favorite son of Hope, Mike Huckabee.

“Welcome to hell,” Huckabee presumed to say to this dead body, revealing himself, again, as more a tabloid headline than a responsible communicator.

Huckabee opened his altogether superfluous public statement by saying it was most unusual to celebrate death. So then he proceeded to celebrate death, apparently licensed by his own pre-emptive acknowledgment of the questionable taste that he was about to display.

That’s a little like the first three paragraphs of this column — saying something tacky by the trick of asserting that it would be inappropriate to say the thing being said. Those paragraphs were written only for ironic effect, you see, to make the point of applying Huckabee’s device to himself.

We all suspect strongly, of course, that bin-Laden will spend eternity in hell, whatever his form and whatever hell’s. But we should not embrace a politician’s seeking electoral gain by dictating and announcing after-life dispositions. Those we should defer to a higher power, whose divine authority no mortal man should dare usurp, even for TV ratings or votes, or both.


I really am uncomfortable with all this kind of lighthearted talk about hell.  Jason Tolbert mentions this same concern in his article yesterday, “American pride; Christian mercy,” Arkansas News Bureau:

However, in spite of the jubilation, some of the reaction was troubling.

“Welcome to hell, bin Laden,” Mike Huckabee wrote on his website last Sunday evening.

Wait a second. A minister of the gospel of Christ is welcoming someone to hell? Something about that just does not feel right.

The gospel I believe teaches that Christ died for all, the good and bad. It teaches that Christ’s redemption is strong enough to save the very worst person on the face of the earth. I think bin Laden meets that definition.

God’s redemption is much stronger than the human mind can comprehend. I can’t forgive bin Laden; only God can do that. I take satisfaction and flag-waving American pride that he was met with justice. But I take no pleasure in the fact that he rejected the love of God and never turned from a life of fanatical hate, leading to his ultimate eternal fate.

I was reminded last week of another fanatical, hate-filled terrorist. This religious leader of his day hated Christians so much that he made it his goal to see them stopped and executed, which he watched and supervised with glee.

He became the apostle Paul after Christ changed his life. He went on to write half the New Testament and was perhaps the greatest missionary of all time.

My point is this. Let us rejoice in justice but let those of us who profess to be Christians remember that we are driven not by hate but by love. And let us tell the world that God’s love is big enough to save even those we hate the most.

The traditional Christian view of hell is a very serious doctrine. 

The next few days I will be posting portions of the article “Hell:The Horrible Choice,” by Patrick Zukeran of Probe Ministries. Here is the fourth installment:

How Can a Loving God Send People to Hell?

Recently I was in a enjoying a pleasant discussion with an atheist named Gus. After answering most of his objections against Christianity, he paused for a moment of contemplation. He then leaned over the table and said, “I find it hard to believe in a God of love who says, ‘Love me or I will throw you into the fire!'”

This statement represents a common misunderstanding. God does not send anyone to hell; people choose to go there.

I explained that God is a loving God, and His earnest desire is that all turn from sin and receive His gift of eternal life. 2 Peter 3:9 states, “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” God desires all to be saved and has made the way possible by sending His son to die in our place. He invites everyone to accept His free gift of eternal life through Christ.

Since God’s desire is that all be saved and He has made this possible for all men, God cannot bear the blame for people going to hell. People go to hell because they knowingly choose to reject His love. C. S. Lewis said, “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says, in the end, ‘Thy will be done.’ “{4}

God’s love also keeps Him from imposing His will on individuals. If a person does not want to be with God in this lifetime, He will not force that person to be with Him for all eternity. In other words, the door of hell is locked from the inside.

After a brief moment, Gus asked, “Do people really have a choice since the Bible states that we are all born sinners and cannot help but sin?” I acknowledged that we are born in sin (Psalm 51) and have a bent to sin. However, our sin nature does not force us to sin. We are sinners and it is inevitable that we will disobey God. However, we can avoid sinning and often do so because disobedience to God involves a choice we make. We can choose otherwise. In a similar way although we are on the road to destruction, we can decide to get off that road and choose life.

What about predestination, some may ask? Does that not negate one’s ability to choose? There are various views on this doctrine but it does not negate our responsibility to repent. God holds us accountable for our decisions, and this responsibility implies the ability to respond. Although we as finite beings may not fully comprehend this doctrine, that does not excuse us from the choice we must all make about Christ.

The sad news is that all who go to hell could avoid going there, but they make a horrible choice.

Notes

1. Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, Handbook of Christian Apologetics (Downers Grove, IL.: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 282.
2. Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian (New York: Touchstone Books, 1957), 17 – 18.
3. Charles Darwin, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, ed. Nora Darwin Barlow, with original omissions restored (N.Y.: W. W. Norton, 1993), 87.
4. C. S. Lewis, Screwtape Letters (New York: Macmillan), 69.