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

Who was Milton Friedman and what did he say about Social Security Reform? (Part 1)

Milton Friedman congratulated by President Ronald Reagan. © 2008 Free To Choose Media, courtesy of the Power of Choice press kit

Milton Friedman – The Social Security Myth

Using Social Security as his prime example, Professor Friedman explodes the myth that the major expansions in government resulted from popular demand. In a speech delivered more than 30 years ago, he directly relates this dynamic to today’s health care debate. http://www.LibertyPen.com

Milton Friedman economist Milton Friedman
Born July 31, 1912
Brooklyn, New York City
Died November 16, 2006
San Francisco, California

Known for
Monetarism
Permanent income hypothesis
Critique of Phillips curve

Notable Prizes
John Bates Clark Medal (1951)
Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics (1976)
Presidential Medal of Freedom (1988)

Milton Friedman (July 31, 1912 – November 16, 2006) was an American economist who made major contributions to the fields of macroeconomics, microeconomics, economic history and statistics while advocating laissez-faire capitalism.

In Capitalism and Freedom (1962) he advocated minimizing the role of government in a free market in order to create political and social freedom. In 1976, he won the Nobel Prize in Economics for his achievements in the fields of consumption analysis, monetary history and theory and for his demonstration of the complexity of stabilization policy. His television series Free to Choose aired on PBS in early 1980. It became a book, co-authored with his wife, Rose Friedman. The book was widely read, as were his columns for Newsweek magazine. In statistics, he devised the Friedman test.

His political philosophy stressing the advantages of the marketplace and the disadvantages of government intervention shaped the outlook of American conservatives and had a major impact on the economic policy of the Ronald Reagan administration in the U.S. and on many other countries after 1980.

___________________________________

I read Milton Friedman’s book “Free to Choose” and practically memorized his 10 part film series (with the same name). I once got to correspond with him, and I was thrilled that he took time to write me back.

Ronald Reagan was another one of my heroes and so was Francis Schaeffer. It was amazing to me that these gentlemen actually had so many connections. Francis Schaeffer’s good friend C. Everett Koop was in the Reagan Administration. Milton Friedman was good friends with Reagan as well.

Milton Friedman wrote an excellent article, “Speaking the truth about Social Security Reform,” April 12, 1999, Cato Institute and I will posting portions of that article in the next few days.  Milton Friedman, winner of the 1976 Nobel Prize in Economics, was a senior research fellow at the Hoover Institution. Originally published in the New York Times January 11, 1999. Here is the first portion:

Executive Summary

 

As support grows for transforming Social Security from a pay-as-you-go defined benefit program to a system of individually owned, privately invested accounts, critics of privatization have warned that making the transition to such a new system would impose substantial new costs on today’s young workers. However, given a proper understanding of Social Security’s current unfunded liabilities—variously estimated at from$4 trillion to $11 trillion—there are no real transition costs to privatizing Social Security, merely the explicit recognition of current implicit debt.

A privatized SocialSecurity system should not be mandatory. The fraction of a person’s income that it is reasonable for him or her to set aside for retirement depends on that person’s circumstances and values. It makes no more sense to specify a minimum fraction for all people than to mandate a minimum fraction of income that must be spent on housing or transportation. Our general presumption is that individuals can best judge for themselves how to use their resources.

The ongoing discussion about privatizing Social Security would benefit from paying more attention to fundamentals, rather than dwelling simply on nuts and bolts of privatization.

 

What does the Heritage Foundation have to say about saving Social Security:Study released May 10, 2011 (Part 1)

What is the future of Social Security and Medicare?

 Congresswoman Virginia Foxx talks with Alison Fraser of the Heritage Foundation about the state of Social Security and Medicare.

“Saving the American Dream: The Heritage Plan to Fix the Debt, Cut Spending, and Restore Prosperity,” Heritage Foundation, May 10, 2011 by  Stuart Butler, Ph.D. , Alison Acosta Fraser and William Beach is one of the finest papers I have ever read. Over the next few days I will post portions of this paper, but I will start off with the section on Social Security. I am also going to give attention to the thoughts of Milton Friedman on the subject too. Here is the first portion:

Saving the American Dream is The Heritage Foundation’s plan to fix the debt, cut spending and, above all, restore prosperity. It balances the nation’s budget within a decade—and keeps it balanced. It reduces the debt and cuts government in half. It eliminates government-mandated health care and fully funds our national defense. It squarely confronts Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, the three so-called entitlement programs, which together account for 43 percent of federal spending today.

To encourage Americans to become more fiscally responsible, the Heritage plan redesigns our entire tax system into an expenditure tax that will have a single, flat rate. This is a structure that will promote savings, therefore benefiting individual Americans, our body politic, and the economy.

At the end of the day our plan, while economic in nature, has a higher moral purpose. If entitlements are not reformed, the next generation and future ones will have to pay punitive tax rates that will end liberty as we have known it. Our proposal, which was funded by a grant initiative set up by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, aims to preserve America’s promise bequeathed to us by past generations.

Social Security

Summary

Social Security is the largest single federal program, paying out about $700 billion per year to some 60 million Americans. It is a major source of retirement income for millions of Americans. Yet Social Security went into the red in 2010, paying out more in benefits than people paid in as payroll taxes. The Congressional Budget Office says that these deficits will continue for at least the next 75 years and probably indefinitely.

Candidate #4,Congressman Ron Paul: Republican Presidential Hopefuls (Part 2)(A Night with Ron Paul Part A, Guest on “The View”)

Ron Paul on The View 4 25 2011 New Book ‘Liberty Defined’ !

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 first part:

Last week Friday, I had the opportunity to spend time with Ron Paul.

It was a chance to get a sense of Dr. Paul that went beyond the short sound bites and brief television appearances that is the way we generally get to gauge presidential candidates. I met him in Reno, NV where he was on the campaign trail. I came up from California for the meeting.

Because of Dr Paul’s tight schedule, Jesse Benton, Paul’s communication director, gave me 30 minutes at 7:00 in the morning. Since Paul had given a speech the night before at the University of Nevada-Reno, I wasn’t sure how much energy he would have that early in the morning. But at 7:00 when I sat down with Dr. Paul at the Silver Legacy Hotel, he was wide awake and clearly ready for a full day.

On television the gentleman that Ron Paul is comes across, but in person there is more. There’s a personal warmth and almost a Ronald Reagan-like charm about him. (There’s pluses and minuses to Ronald Reagan, the president, but he did have that charm, and so does Dr. Paul) When we sat down to talk, it was almost like we were life long buddies.

Without waiting for any questions from me, he told me that the week was the busiest in his life. On Monday, he was in New York promoting his new book. He also appeared on “The View”, on the “Sean Hannity Show” and the “Colbert Report”. On Tuesday he announced the formation of his exploratory committee and also began handling reporters’ questions about Fed Chairman Bernanke’s upcoming press conference. On Wednesday, there were more news interviews from reporters wanting to know his view after Bernanke’s briefing.

Dr. Paul told me that his new house is an hour away from Houston and that he had made the decision not to go into Houston for short news media interviews. He told me somewhat excitedly, as an indication of his growing following, that on Wednesday the television stations sent trucks from Houston out to his house to get his reaction.

Pt 1/6 Ron Paul  4/15/11 CSPAN

Brummett:We must increase debt ceiling or disaster will occur (Part 4)

John Brummett in his article “Dear visa, my debt ceiling is capped,” April 25, 2011, Arkansas News Bureau, he observes:

The first thing I intend to do is join the tea party. Then I’m going to refuse to raise my debt limit. Then I’m going to call the Visa people.

“Y’all have me down here owing $6,000,” I’m going to say. “But I’ve become a fiscal conservative. I’m getting really disciplined fiscally. I’m taking my household back.

“My self-imposed debt ceiling is $4,000. I’ve opted not to raise it. Nary a cent. I only went over it because the oral surgeon demanded immediate payment.

“So $4,000 is the most you rascals will get out of me. You may as well quit compounding the interest on this outstanding balance. I am serious about this. You may consider this baby capped at four grand.

“Oh, by the way: Don’t even think about canceling this card. I have a second round of dental work coming up and the oral surgeon doesn’t give these implants away.

“Thank you, and remember: Vote Palin-Bachmann.”

You are thinking this is absurd. You are right, of course.

But you are not intellectually entitled to call it absurd if you are among the seven in 10 Americans telling pollsters you don’t want the federal government’s debt ceiling raised. You are not intellectually entitled if you are one of these right-wing politicians pandering to this tea-drunken grandstand by threatening to vote not to raise it.

Here is how real fiscal responsibility works: You repay the debt that you have incurred to date. You make spending reductions prospectively by showing sufficient discipline to reduce the future pace at which you incur debt. You dare not let your existing debt go unpaid lest your credit score suffer and you get denied the next time you find yourself in a bit of a pinch and need to finance a refrigerator at Sears.

Michael Tanner made some great observations in his article “Debt-Ceiling Myths,” National Review Online, May 11, 2011. 

Michael D. Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and author of Leviathan on the Right: How Big-Government Conservatism Brought Down the Republican Revolution. Here is a portion of this recent article: 

Now that Osama bin Laden has been successfully dispatched to the eternal damnation he so richly deserves, Washington is ready to return to the more mundane question of whether the Obama administration will be allowed to spend this country into oblivion.

The next big fiscal fight will be over when and how to increase the debt limit. The administration has been hard at work trying to shape the message and public opinion. Unsurprisingly, much of that message is less than 100 percent accurate. Here are some myths about the debt ceiling and the upcoming debate about raising it:

1. Failure to pass means defaulting on our debts. If there has been consistent message from the White House, it that the United States can’t afford to “default on our debts.” That is almost certainly true. However, refusing to raise the debt limit does not mean defaulting on our debts. The U.S. Treasury currently takes in more than enough revenue to pay both the interest and the principal on the debts we currently owe. And if the Obama administration is truly worried about whether it will do so, then it should urge Congress to pass the legislation proposed by Sen. Pat Toomey (R., Pa.) requiring the Treasury Department to pay those bills first. It is true that, once we had paid our debt-service bills, there wouldn’t be enough money left over to pay for everything else the Obama administration wants to spend money on. The government would have to prioritize its expenditures — sending out checks for the troops’ pay and Social Security first. Other spending would have to wait. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner says that not spending money Congress has appropriated is “the same as default.” It is not. It is economizing, which is what you do when you are out of money.