On September 30, 1999, this story was written in the New York Times:

“In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets — including the New York metropolitan region — will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates — anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

”Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990’s by reducing down payment requirements,” said Franklin D. Raines [an Obama Advisor], Fannie Mae’s chairman and chief executive officer. ”Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.”

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980’s.

”From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,” said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ”If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.”

Under Fannie Mae’s pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 — a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.

Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.

Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.

Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990’s. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University’s Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent.

In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent.

Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.

In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.

The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants.”

This post is reproduced with the permission of the blogger commoniowan at the Iowa Defense Alliance.

Much has been during this year’s presidential race in regards to the role that devout Christians should play in the political realm. Some people have made the claim that people with a foundation of religious belief should not be placed in a position of power. Most of these people are atheists that think our religion is nothing more than a “silly superstition”. (Of course we know the truth that they refuse to see.) They want to relegate us to the churches; they want to keep us out of leadership roles. They believe us to be mentally unstable because we believe in “fairy tales”.

We have even been called evil because we believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Because we believe homosexuality is a sin we are spurned as extremist hate mongers. Our love for all humans both born and unborn is viewed as extreme by the godless. Because we want to save the world from eternal damnation we are called crazy.

These kinds of attacks are leveled at Christian believers from all sides and from a diverse group of people. In a recent interview with former Democratic Presidential candidate Mike Gravel a reporter made the comment that Sarah Palin’s positions on abortion are extreme because she did not believe abortion should be legal, even in the case of rape or incest. Think about this attack. Sarah Palin was attacked because she believed that an unborn child has a right to life. I don’t see this as extreme; I see this as compassionate to an innocent life.

During the primary season we saw former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee attacked because he was also a former Baptist Minister. There were many cases of bigotry against Huckabee because of his religion. Many people leveled the charge of religious bigot against Mike. It seems that if you have a faith in anything other than our government you are labeled a whack job. If you are a devout Christian they attack you. Look at the attacks that WHO Radio personality Steve Deace has to put up with on a daily basis. If you read the various Iowa conservative blogs you are going to come across someone calling him one name or another.

What these people that level their charges against do not realize is that by unleashing their venomous comments and attacks against Christian believers, they are becoming what they attack. They become the bigots for attacking those of faith. They become crazy because their hatred and anger become all consuming. Their attacks become illogical and ill aimed. They become cynical and weak. They can no longer see the truth that is out there. It is then up to us to bring them to the truth and the light.

I believe that it is the duty of every true Christian out there to get involved in the political realm. We need to protect our faith and our beliefs from the onslaught of the minions of darkness. If we do not get involved we will see our ability to exercise our religion and our beliefs slowly chipped away. If we abandon the political realm how long is it before our government mandates that all churches must perform same sex marriages. How long will it be before our beliefs are regulated? How long would it be before the government tells us what can and can’t be taught in our churches? This is why people of faith need to get involved in the political realm. To protect our freedoms and prevent government mandated immorality.

I suppose that if my beliefs make me a bigot then I will wear the term proudly. I can do this because through my faith I know what is right and I know what is wrong. I would rather be called a religious bigot for my beliefs than spend an eternity in the lake of fire to be politically correct. So can you look at the recent news coverage and tell me who the true religious bigot is?

By Daniel from @ the front lines

John McCain made a surprise appearance after Gov. Palin’s speech last night, and asked what amounted to a rhetorical question: “Don’t you think we made the right choice for vice president of the United States?” The audience certainly agreed, and showed it with their deafening shouts and applause.

Chants at the convention included “ZERO,” whenever Obama’s experience was referred to, as well as “SARAH,” and “USA.” The convention last night was full of funny one-liners, including many from Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, and, of course, Sarah Palin. Other speakers included former EBay President and CEO Meg Whitman, former Hewlett-Packard Chairwoman and CEO Carly Fiorina. Texas Railroad Commission Chairman Michael Williams electrified the crowd by suggesting that the same questions being asked about Gov. Palin’s experience be asked about the top of the Democratic ticket, Barack Obama. Williams expressed his desire for people at the gas pump and grocery counter to put more change in their pocket. “That’s change we can believe in,” he said. He also pointed out that McCain would not support the brutal murdering of unborn babies.

RUDY GIULIANI

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani delivered an impressive speech Wednesday night, saying that “tough times require tough leadership, and this is no time for on-the-job training,” making it clear that he could agree with Joe Biden on one thing. Giuliani also pointed out the fact that Palin has more executive experience than the entire Democratic ticket combined. “I’m sorry that Barack Obama feels that her hometown isn’t cosmopolitan enough… Maybe they cling to religion there.” He further went through the qualifications of John McCain and Barack Obama, as if he were reviewing two applicants for a job. When he announced that one had been a ‘community organizer,’ the crowd simply started laughing, and so did Rudy! “Well, I guess that’s the first problem with his resume,” he said, chuckling. At another juncture, Giuliani said, “He’s never run a city, never run a state, never run a business, never run a military unit. He’s never had to lead people in crisis. This is not a personal attack… It’s a statement of fact: Barack Obama has never led anything. Nothing. Nada.” Of course, Rudy obviously forgot that Obama co-chaired a foundation with William Ayers, a domestic terrorist. That is okay, because Obama seems to have forgotten it, as well. Giuliani pointed out many flip-flops of Obama, including on campaign reform, America’s support of Israel, and surveillance on the enemy. “If I were Joe Biden, I’d want to get that VP thing in writing,” he quipped. The crowd seemed to agree.

MIKE HUCKABEE

Gov. Mike Huckabee spoke earlier, and although he admitted having originally desired the acceptance slot on Thursday night, he expressed his deep support and admiration for John McCain and Sarah Palin. He said that he was “so tired” of the questioning of Ms. Palin’s experience, first as mayor in Wasilla and then Governor of Alaska, stating that “she got more votes running for mayor of Wasilla than Joe Biden got running for President of the United States.” Unfortunately, for Biden, this is the truth, and the crowd loved it. Huckabee also thanked the “elite media for doing something that, quite frankly, I wasn’t sure could be done, and that’s unifying the Republican Party and all of America in support of Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin. The reporting of the past few days has proven tackier than a costume change at a Madonna concert.” Keeping the ‘CHANGE’ theme prominent, he stated that McCain “doesn’t want the kind of change that allows the government to reach even deeper into your paycheck and pick your pocket, your doctor, your child’s school or even the kind of car you drive – or tell you how much you have to inflate your tires.” Huckabee also spoke regarding social issues, saying that McCain “doesn’t want to change the definition of marriage. And, unlike the Democratic ticket, Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin believe that every human life has intrinsic worth and value from the moment of conception.”

SARAH PALIN
Of course, the biggest speech of the night was that of Alaska Governor and VP nominee Sarah Palin. According to a USA Today article, “Palin was the featured speaker and Obama the designated target.” And target him she did. “This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting, and never use the word ‘victory’ except when he’s talking about his own campaign,” she said. “But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed, when the roar of the crowd fades out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot – what exactly is our opponent’s plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he’s done turning back the waters and healing the planet.” Earlier in the speech, Palin defended her small-town mayoral experience, saying, “And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involves. I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a ‘community organizer’ – except that you have actual responsibilities.” Palin, acknowledging that she is “not a member in good standing in the Washington elite,” gave the “a little news flash for all those reporters and commentators: I’m not going to Washington to seek their good opinion. I’m going to Washington to serve the people of this great country.”

She joked earlier, “You know the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick.” According to the Detroit Free Press, “She dismissed her critics, mocked the media and got in more than a few good shots at Barack Obama.” Other media outlets, including NPLR and AirHeads of America (otherwise known as Air America), dismissed her speech as ‘tacky,’ and ‘mean.’ Yes, the Free Press is correct. She placed well-placed and absolutely legitimate shots at Obama.

As Mike Huckabee said, the Party is united. We love our nominees and will fight hard until November to elect them. Yesterday’s convention really highlighted the incredible unity in the GOP. Now, we must fight for our country and get McCain and Palin elected. Country First.

Oh, and stay tuned for John McCain’s acceptance speech tonight!

Reading the posts at the Corner this afternoon on the Huckabee for Vice-President boomlet, I have to feel like I was watching a scary campfire story.  Rick Lowry, editor of National Review (which endorsed Mitt Romney) basically said, “Hey, you want to hear something scary?”

There’s no indication that Huckabee is being considered, so consider this idle speculation like the Hillary chatter prior to Obama’s pick. But wouldn’t Huckabee make a lot of sense given the things we’ve learned the last two weeks? 1) McCain might have a “wealth problem,” and certainly Democrats are going to try to hit his wealth for all its worth in their play for working-class voters; Huckabee doesn’t have a problem on this front, and has lots of working-class cred. 2) The pro-choice trial balloon hasn’t been well received, and it’s clear that a pro-choice nominee would create a major disruption; Huckabee is pro-life. 3) Obama picked Biden who is going to a vivid presence (for better or worse) on the stump and could be formidable in debate; Huckabee is a great campaigner and might be just the guy to puncture Biden in a debate. 4) (This is a less important point.) The McCain folks have made a huge deal about differences between Obama and Biden during the primaries; McCain and Huckabee didn’t have much in the way of differences and went out of their way to praise each other. The other upsides are the press likes Huckabee (for now), he’s a different kind of Republican, and his selection would be such a shock, it might even be considered bold. The downsides are—as I’ve noted many times before—he doesn’t have much in the way of national security credentials and has a big seriousness gap, obviously not trifling matters. But if McCain can’t do Lieberman, and isn’t thrilled by Pawlenty or Romney, Huckabee might be worth a last-minute second look.

Then, like kids around the campfire, the Corner’s highly paid authors in their middle age take turns playing the parts of kids frightened around the campfire. First is noted huckahater Kathryn Jean Lopez, the National Review Online Editor:

Don’t encourage! I’m certain this is the case, that he’s getting a second look, and, if McCain picks him, there will be a clear, renewed declaration of independence among many conservatives from the Republican party, especially inasmuch as it is the McCain/Huckabee party. If Mike Huckabee is veep, don’t expect him to be president four years down the line. A McCain/Huckabee administration would be a real eye-opener for the Right. Even moreso, I think, than four years of Barack Obama.

Don’t you love, how Lopez who on Sunday dropped her own suggestion of a Huckabee Veep pick on Sunday may think just a tad too highly of National Review Online. After all this decision comes down to John McCain and I don’t think the Corner’s going to decide how he votes. Now I’ll change my mind if when McCain announces his Veep he says, “You know I was going to go with Mitt Romney, but then I read Rick Lowry’s post on the Corner and I decide, ‘You know that Huckabee sounds pretty good…’

Jonathan Adler cringes by the campfire along with the rest saying:

Not that I’m representative of any big constituency or anything (libertarian-leaning law profs in swing states?), but if McCain were to select Huckabee as his running mate he would lose my vote for sure.  I’m luke-warm on McCain to begin with, but  I care enough about judges, trade, judges, spending, and judges that I’m still likely to pull the lever for him come November.  But not if he were to tap the Huckster.

Libertarian law professors in swing states…thousands of voters and volunteers….hmmm. Tough choice.

Note here that judges is both Adler’s primary issue and one thing nobody ever doubted Huckabee on, and he’d bolt over Huck. Say what?

Finally Andrew Strattaford:

I’m with Kathryn on this, Rich. It’s not just the probability that Huckabee would irritate (to use a gentle word) as many on the right as, I suspect, he would reassure, but it’s also the certainty that picking him would horrify the independents and centrists who, ultimately, decide general elections. Yes, opting for Huckabee ‘might be considered bold,’ but so would an attempt to leap across the Grand Canyon.

The only ones who seemed horrified are the National Review editorial board. As for the center, I will adopt Big Tent Democrat’s axiom:

Politics is not a battle for the middle. It is a battle for defining the terms of the political debate. It is a battle to be able to say what is the middle.

‘Nuff Said. 

Rich Lowry sensing that his fellow National Review Online contributors were taking things too seriously tried to calm them down:

Relax — there’s zero indication that the McCain people are looking at him. If they are, it’s news to Huckabee, I’m told.

But Kathryn Jean Lopez isn’t done, even though she and none of the Corner crew have even begun to explain the problems they have with Huckabee. Enter a reader who makes a case for Sarah Palin:

All four of Lowry’s reasons that Huckabee could help McCain are equally
achieved by Sarah Palin, and she has many other benefits as well without the
risks. If McCain picks Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, he locks up the election. To
Lowry’s 4 points on Huckabee:

1) Connecting with the average Joe on wealth, lifestyle, likeability—-While
fairly well-off, Palin is entirely self-made and not filthy rich (By the
way, McCain did a great job answering the wealth question last night on
Leno). She has working class creds: her husband is a commercial fisherman.
She is an outdoorsman and hunter. She has something like 80-90% approval
ratings.

2) Sanctity of Life—-Palin is staunchly pro-life and will not fracture the
base. She has 5 kids and is proof positive of the wisdom of Feminists for
Life’s the effective call to “refuse to choose”—women should not have to
give up motherhood for career/education or vice-versa.

3) Debates: Palin is an excellent speaker and in a debate with Biden he
would come off as the gasbag buffoon he is. And if he goes too far attacking
her he comes off as Lazio did vs. Hillary, i.e., mean.

4) On-the-record statements against the nominee: She has no major
“differences” with McCain at least on the record the way Biden did w/ Obama
(maybe one slight exception on energy where she expressed favor towards one
particular element of Obama’s energy plan, but nothing compared to Biden’s
praise of McCain).

In addition, Palin could increase the share of women voting GOP (maybe even
grab some disaffected Clinton supporters if they can get over the abortion
thing), plus she is such a darkhorse that it would be a total media
blindside and thus create a huge story right when McCain needs to tamp down
Obama’s convention “bounce.” Plus it makes the ticket exciting/fresh/hopeful
(take your pick) and can help seize the change mantle back from Obama
(rather than being another ticket of boring white guys.) Palin has a
reformer/outsider image which dovetails well w/ McCain’s themes. In Alaska
she ran on an anti-corruption platform and totally toppled the Alaska GOP
establishment. Finally, her oldest son is an enlisted soldier in Iraq,
which, like McCain, gives her more credibility on war issues and with the
military vote.

These are all great points for Sarah Palin. I love Sarah Palin. Here’s the problem with her as VP. Major political experience: less than 2 years as Governor. With Obama, we have the least experienced candidate for President since the Republicans nominated Wendell Wilkie in 1940. In Sarah Palin, we would have the least experienced candidate for Vice-Presidence since 1972 when the Democrats nominated S. Sargent Shriver. That worked out well. 2012, maybe. 2008, it would take away too much of McCain’s edge on experience.

Plus, it seems really presumptuous to assume identity politics. “Oh, you’re a woman, you’re going to vote for the woman.” Wasn’t there a campaign that ran around assuming that?

The e-mailer goes on:

McCain and Huckabee are too similar in their often-democrat-sounding class
warfare rhetoric. Palin could moderate McCain on that front, yet she too is
a reformer who has “taken on big oil”, etc. Huckabee is a tax-raiser who
scares Wall Street. Plus his theocratic comments scare many McCain-inclined
independents. 

So Huckabee is a tax raiser? I guess that whole signing the “No Tax Increase” pledge doesn’t help. He did raise taxes in Arkansas under a variety of circumstances that came up in Arkansas with a 3/4 Democratic legislature that could override his veto with a majority vote, but let’s not get into all those boring facts right now. But what about Sarah Palin. Great governor, but she raised taxes $1.5 billion on oil companies and was compared to Hugo Chavez by Bloomberg and she’s even earned a following of anti-Palin trolls who show up on blogs when Palin is mentioned to diss her, similar to the anti-Huckabee trolls who do the same.

Yet, for this reader, either he/she didn’t know what Palin did (because National Review has decided not to make a big deal out of Palin’s tax increases) or for some reason decided to ignore it. Either way, it adds up to a double standard.

Regardless, I have to chuckle at the self-induced fear at National Review about a rumor they created for fear that the rumor they made up might be true. What it indicates to me is that National Review should consider relocating its office to somewhere like Knoxville, or Topeka, somewhere outside of the New York-Washington bubble.

I think what the fear and loathing of Mike Huckabee is a larger sympton of is the elitism of establishment ”conservative media” inside the beltway that while willing to accept the support of people in middle America, is really doesn’t care that much for people they might look at as bumpkins and rednecks, who by the way, purchase their magazines. If you don’t live inside the DC Bubble or have close ties to it, to the National Reviews of the World, you really don’t have anything to contribute. 

If Middle Americans want their voice heard, National Review is, unfortunately, one of those institutions they’ll have to fight to get the job done.  

The following letter was published in a small Northern Michigan newspaper. It was sent to the paper by a young man who later gave his life in Vietnam. This letter clearly shows to America the need to support our troops and their mission.

“The last couple of weeks I have seen notes in the paper about bringing our boys home.

No man wants to leave home and go to war… Every man that is here would like to be home, but we know we have to be here, and while we are here, we are going to do our best to fight, and die, if we must, to keep our country free.

We do not ask much of the people at home, just a little support will make it a lot easier, to know the people at home are pulling for us. We feel we are winning the war, and we have a right to be here. Please do not protest the war.”

The words above were penned by Ernie Skinner, who was killed by the Viet Cong while searching for a fallen comrade. Skinner was awarded the Bronze Star.

The last paragraph says it all. “We do not ask much of the people at home, just a little support will make it a lot easier… Please to not protest the war.”

According to the leader of the Viet Cong, the protests in America held their group together. He said that they felt like giving up the fight, but the fact that their enemy was not united raised their moral. This could very well happen with al Qaeda. If people here continue to undermine our troops and their mission, al Qaeda will continue to view the message that our country is not united in this effort.

I urge you, support our troops, through your letters, care packages, and not undermining their mission.

Crossposted with permission of author, from a forum comment at hucksarmy.com. ‘Justgrace’ speaks for us all. It’s about more than a man, it’s about our concerns for our country and its future.

We are not ’self righteous,’ fanatics, or bigoted.  We have just learned the lessons of history. When America moves away from the moral boundary stones set by our spiritual heritage, we get deeply and tragically lost. Mike Huckabee has awoken in us a desire to be the somebody, who does the something to make a difference in getting our county back on track. I hope John McCain will give him the chance to influence that many more lives.

.

 

I know we Huckabee supporters can get a little upset over the mistreatment of our candidate, and it is important to ask “why?”

Is it because he is such a nice guy, and we do not want him to be mistreated?

Is it because we have spent many of our hours and dollars trying to boost him in the polls, trying to get the word out about why Gov. Huckabee would be a great leader for our country, and so we are upset that our time might have been wasted and our sacrifices have been in vain?

Is it because we see the unfairness of how Mike Huckabee was overlooked by the Christian Right, and scoffed by the left, ignored by the media, and forsaken by the talk-show hosts?

I think the reason needs to be deeper for our support, and I believe in most cases it is. I also think that our disquiet is not motivated so much by anger at mistreatment as it is by anxiety for the future of our country. We are concerned about our children and grandchilden’s future.

Huckabee supporters are deeply concerned with the changes in the United States of America we see, statistics that reveal a decline in almost every area: our schools, our children’s moral training, (rises in) juvenile delinquency, our social problems among the black population where the father is largely absent and the little boys with no father presence in their lives eventually end up in prison. We see the decline, where little girls grow up to be abused and not honored as ladies, where husbands forsake marriage vows, and where now wives are doing the same. Most of the time, it seems no one is home, keeping the “home fires” burning, since we have to (or choose to be) absent as parents. The family is in shambles, the schools often are also, the burden of taxation is almost unbearable, and atop that we wonder just how secure we are from terrorists threats. We see too-little and too-slow a turn-around in abortions and practices where human life is allowed to be cheapened.

Along came a remarkable candidate, a governor from Arkansas, who we saw had been successful in addressing and changing many social and economic issues in his own state. He brought hope to the people of his state through honest, responsible government and an “I care” and “We can do” attitude. He was able to procure our faith in his words, and reawaken our dreams for the America we used to be so proud of. While we still love our country, there is also a regret and deep sense of loss that conservatives see in looking at how our country is declining in many areas.

I think one of the most basic reasons we “Huckabeans” have been captured by the message and the man called Mike Huckabee is because we have been so frustrated and deeply concerned with the direction politics in this country has gone. Now that we have gotten acquainted with this unusually fresh, honest, self-sacrificial, caring candidate, we are not ready to let go of the idea that “he is the man our country needs. He is the man for the season!”

If you will, we see in him the “real change” in politics everyone is talking about; he is the one who understands the wrong direction in which our nation is headed, left vs. right, downhill verses up, and he wants to head it in a new direction: “vertically.”

So when people say, “You Huckabee fans are just disgruntled fanatics,” we know better. Yes, we are frustrated. The path that Gov. Huckabee has taken has not been the easiest, not paved with streets of gold or the accolades of the GOP or much of the press, but it is still a positive, hopeful race. We just don’t know how God in His sovereignty will allow turns of events, but we pray that the time will come soon for Gov. Mike Huckabee to lead this nation forward. We want to give him the chance to lead and put his ideals in place. We want him to follow his dream, and we want to be right there, cheering him on and helping make a change for the good of America and the world.

We conservatives are often people of faith, who are quite distressed to see a nation built on Judeo-Christian principles turning its back on the very things that made this nation great — “faith, family, and freedom.”

These are the standard American principles for which we were historically known, the things for which the Pilgrims, the Puritans, the original thirteen colonies stood and died. These were the principles our country grappled with and rediscovered, even through the dark blotches on our character, for which we have had to make amends — such things as the Salem witch trials, the mistreatment of the Native Americans, and the toleration of slavery in certain states of our country. Even during these dark times of our history, there were good people who did not lose sight of the vision of America as the “land of the free and the home of the brave.”

Deeper than momentary disappointments of “party” or efforts lost, we have a greater reason for our urgency in praying that our man wins. For the “sake of our country,” we want Mike Huckabee to win the nomination for Vice President and later for President.

To this end we pray often. For the country we love. For our families whom we cherish. For true freedom with responsibility. For the beacon of light America can be to the world.

The following is a Huckabee round-up and response to various things out there in the media.

Nothing’s more boring than somebody who says the same thing over and over again, or a media that keeps asking. It’s funny because the media keeps asking the same thing about Huckabee being Vice-President and it’s been spun a hundred ways for six months. The more recent one include, “Huckabee would consider VP Offer.” A Reuters video headline a couple months ago, “Huckabee: VP Not Expected“ and you can find dozens of similar stories in the 5+ months since the Huckabee campaign, but they have the exact same content of Huck’s remarks, just different spin. Mark Levin alleges:

When Huckabee visited Israel, some speculated it was an attempt to improve his Veep chances. Stop, I don’t think Huckabee expects the VP and he certainly not campaigning for it. Huckabee has a TV show, a book, a political action committee, and a campaign dance card that’s as full as anyone’s in the country. Desperation for the VP race isn’t on his menu.

In fact, Huckabee may benefit by not getting the VP nod. For one thing, it’ll kill the notion that Huckabee stayed in the race to help McCain defeat Romney in order for Huckabee to get the VP spot. In addition, this election is probably going to be the nastiest race in recent memory. I’d venture to say this may turn out to be the most vicious Presidential race since 1884.

Now CBS Has Gone Evangelical?

America’s kings of conservative talk have been trash-talking Huckabee, over his remarks on Mitt Romney. Said El Rushbo, “Meanwhile  Mike Huckabee is out there trashing Mitt Romney to a number of evangelical groups. ”

The concerns have been raised in interviews with CBS and FOX, both times in response to questions.

Mark Levin has come after Huckabee stating:

And, by the way, I’m talking about Romney, not because I think he’ll win Michigan but because I thought, at least during the campaign, he was one of the more conservative candidates who was left standing, and if not for Huckaphony, uh, protecting his friend John McCain. By the way, Huckaphony attacked Fred Thompson, Huckaphony attacked, uh um, Romney, attacked two of the most conservative guys in the, uh, race. And now he’s getting to decide who’s acceptable and who’s not? Now, Tom Ridge is acceptable to Huckaphony! Tom Ridge, a liberal, who’s pro-choice, is acceptable to Huckaphony, but Romney and Thompson, no! Get out of here!”

We can debate Romney’s conservatism, but the fact of the matter is that Levin is guilty of gross misrepresentation. CBS summed up Huckabee’s statement was that he would support McCain, whoever the Veep is including Romney or Ridge. It’s part of having been a Republican candidate. His urge is for a trustworthy pro-life Veep. He doesn’t want Ridge.

Levin will neither return the e-mail nor allow a caller on the air to correct his errors. Come on, can’t broadcast professionals do better than this?

Laying the Jimmy Carter Meme to Rest

We’ve heard from many conservatives that Mike Huckabee has the foreign policy views of Jimmy Carter. Perhaps, these critics should should pay attention to Mike Huckabee in jerusalem:

From the Evening Bulletin:

During his three-day visit to Israel, Mr. Huckabee viewed the town’s police station, where he saw a display of missiles fired on the town from Gaza.

Visibly shaken, the governor stopped to speak to reporters. “There is nothing normal about waking up everyday and having to worry about your children getting hurt in a rocket attack,” he said. “No bandage or medicine can cure the suffering of the children of Sderot.”

Mr. Huckabee was then escorted to the home of the Tourgeman family that had been devastated by a missile attack, where he was shown pieces of an exploded missile and the large hole where the rocket had smashed into the house.

The Bulletin asked Mr. Huckabee, “How could you impress upon the American people the consequences of the Israeli withdrawals, when this is the result – terrorists using areas under their control to fire missiles?”

Mr. Huckabee’s response was that “not everyone can come here and see it for themselves. Americans don’t get it. They do not understand the close proximity. How would we feel if Canadians started launching missiles at Buffalo? Would they say that we should vacate Buffalo and then scoot back into New York?”

Mr. Huckabee then discussed how to make this point with Sen. McCain. When Mr. McCain emerged from a bombed-out home in Sderot back in March, The Bulletin asked him the same question, to which McCain responded that Israel should continue with the peace process negotiations, and he stated to speak about the “moderate” Palestinian leadership.

Mr. Huckabee’s response was that “I will have a talk with Sen. McCain about this. I can’t tell you that this is why but I believe that there is an unwillingness to upset the energy supply and the ripple effect of that which I said two years ago – for which I was laughed at – that America must become energy independent within 10 years – not only for economic reasons, but also for security reasons.

After lunch with Sderot residents at a Yeshiva seminary, the ex-governor climbed to the rooftop of the seminary and gazed for a moment at the areas from Gaza where more than 8,000 missiles have been from Gaza into the Jewish communities of the Western Negev region over the past seven years. His comment: “Both Christians and Jews share a culture of life. They share a culture of death and destruction.

“We don’t have a frame of reference for the spirit of radical Islam,” the visiting American politician said. “That’s why having tea with our enemies won’t work. The language doesn’t work. It’s like trying to hook a Mac up to a PC.”

From CBN:

“As an American, I do not feel that the Israelis are obligated or required to give up land in order to bring peace,” Huckabee told reporters.

“You do not achieve peace by creating a situation where you cannot defend your borders and therefore protect your citizens. Having a temporary cessation of hostility is not peace if while that cessation of hostility is going on, just across the border, arms are being built up for the purpose of eventually pushing that border down,” he said.

“The Jewish people have a right to a homeland,” he said, asking why a Palestinian state must be established atop a “tiny space of real estate” that has belonged to Jews for millennia.

Huckabee pointed out that a map of the Middle East shows that there’s plenty of real estate available.

“We are talking about a postage stamp where Israel is,” he said, and “we are talking about an extraordinary footprint for land controlled by the Arabs.

A future Palestinian state does not have to be built “on top of Israeli land,” he said.

“There are many, many places where a homeland for the Palestinians could, in fact, take place, which would be consistent with their roots,” he said.

“But there is only one place on earth where the Jewish people could have a homeland that is consistent with their roots,” Huckabee said.

And from CNS News:

Jerusalem (CNSNews.com) – The United States should respect Israel’s decision to base its capital in Jerusalem and should move its embassy there accordingly, former Arkansas Gov. and former Republican Party presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee said.

“I think our government has been reluctant to act. I think we should recognize that this is the capital that the Israelis have chosen. If that’s their choice then it should be our respect of their government seat to have our embassy here,” Huckabee told journalists in Jerusalem on Monday.

“We would hardly tolerate [it] if the Israelis said, ‘We don’t recognize Washington, D.C., as the nation’s capital. We want to go to Denver.’ I think we’d have a problem with that. We’d say, ‘No our capital is in Washington. If you’re going to have an embassy, that’s where it’s going to be,’” said Huckabee who is here on a private two-day whirlwind tour.

Is any of this sounding like Jimmy Carter? Didn’t think so. Sounds like someone who understands the threat of Islamic terrorism, and the reality of the situation in the Middle East. If you can imagine Jimmy Carter saying this, good luck.

More importantly than that, I’d quote back to Keyes’ original piece where Keyes said, “Huckabee touted his true record  (emphasis mine) of support for moral conservative positions.” Note that Keyes didn’t argue Huckabee was pretending, that he wasn’t committed on these moral issues, in fact he said quite the opposite here. Perhaps, the supporter’s problem is not only with me, but with Dr. Keyes as well.

 

 

What if one day you went to work one day and looked out of your office window to discover a demolition crew. To your horror, you discover that they’re getting ready to tear the building down. With you in it.

You can hear the crew outside talking with the owner about the details of the plans to destroy the building. In anguish, you yell out at the top of your lungs to try to let them know that you’re in there. But they don’t hear you. You try to open the windows. But you discover that you’re not strong enough to get out.

Thankfully, some people do know you’re in there and they go to talk with the building owner. They tell her that there is somebody inside and that it’s not right to tear the building down with somebody in it. She doesn’t seem to believe that there could actually be anyone inside and is assured by the demolition crew that the building is empty except for some worthless furniture. They discourage her from checking for herself, insist that it’s empty and try to hurry her along so that they can get paid.

The people who know you’re in the building don’t give up. They go to court and file a motion to halt the demolition on the grounds that you are in the building, which you are. But the demolition company files a counter-motion on behalf of their client, the building owner, and insist that the people trying to help you are attempting to restrict the owner’s right to do what she wants with her property. The court sides with the demolition crew and the building owner, ruling that there is no evidence that anyone is inside the building and that no one has the right to stop someone from tearing down their own property. The owner and the demolition crew rejoice that justice has been done and their rights have been protected. The news media reports that the owner’s property rights have been protected against the people who tried to take them away.

Back in the building, you nervously look outside the window as the wrecking ball begins to move. You had never planned on being in the building for long and just want to be able to be allowed to leave safely. You instinctively hope that someone will somehow help you. But the owner has most likely been deceived into thinking that you’re not there. In addition, the court has determined that the owner has a right to destroy the property. They ruled this way without even considering the possibility that when the owner allows the demolition crew to destroy the building, they will also be ending your life in the process.

Anyone who bothered to check the building would conclude that there is a living person inside of it. But even this is no longer the issue that concerns those watching. Your struggle to avoid being demolished is now viewed by many as the struggle to allow the building owner to have control of her own property and to prevail against the people who want to stop her from destroying it with you in it.

The wrecking ball swings over and over again. Eventually, the building falls and tragically, your life is ended.

 

The story you just read does not have a happy ending. But what is saddest about it is that this is exactly what happens every day to thousands of unborn babies whose moms have been convinced by “demolition crews” that there is no one in her “building” – her womb. The courts have declared that mom, the property owner, has the right to do what she wants with her “building” – without fully exploring the question of whether or not anyone is in there.

There is one main difference between this story and the story of the million unborn American babies who face the wrecking ball each year. The unborn babies can’t yell.

 

If you are pregnant and scared or know someone who is, please know that you have a lot of people who care about both the mother and baby and that there are alternatives. For example, there are a lot of organizations (Life Choices for example) that can help you or refer you to someone who can. There is somebody else in your building.

“The Values Voter”

Mark Levin suggested on Thursday that Mike supported Tom Ridge for VP, or at least, thought that Ridge would be acceptable. I checked the details regarding Levin’s nice, untrue rumor, and here are the facts.
Here is the exact quote. You can hear the audio by clicking here and fast forwarding to 33:12.

“We gotta win Pennsylvania. ‘Well, pick Ridge,’ as if that’s gonna bring
Pennsylvania over. It’s not.

And, by the way, I’m talking about Romney, not because I think he’ll win Michigan but because I thought, at least during the campaign, he was one of the more conservative candidates who was left standing, and if not for Huckaphony, uh, protecting his friend John McCain. By the way, Huckaphony attacked Fred Thompson, Huckaphony attacked, uh um, Romney, attacked two of the most conservative guys in the, uh, race. And now he’s getting to decide who’s acceptable and who’s not? Now, Tom Ridge is acceptable to Huckaphony! Tom Ridge, a liberal, who’s pro-choice, is acceptable to Huckaphony, but Romney and Thompson, no! Get out of here!”

Now, the facts, which we’re mostly concerned about on the Alliance, are below.
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/14/huckabee-mccain-vice-presidential-pick-should-be-anti-abortion/

There’s been quite a bit of controversy over Huckabee supporters saying they won’t support a Presidential ticket with Mitt Romney or with a Pro-Abortion person on it. There are a couple questions that need to be asked about this.

First, it’s entirely appropriate to withhold support based on who the VP is? John McCain is a 71-almost 72 year old Cancer survivor. McCain’s age is intended with a host of possible health problems. If a pro-abortion person is put on the ticket or someone that cultural conservatives don’t view as trustworthy and that candidate is elected, there’s a decent shot that cultural conservatives will vote to let someone they don’t trust appoint Supreme Court Justices. Tom Ridge picking the next Justice of the Supreme Court? I don’t think so.

Some think that Conservatives should automatically vote for McCain given the alternative. I believe that my vote is earned, not the personal property of a political party.

It is legitimate to decide not to vote for a candidate that doesn’t share your values and hasn’t earned your vote.

I also find the faux-outrage and anger directed at Huckabee supporters over their stating they won’t vote for the ticket if Romney is on it to be classic. Romney supporting magazine, National Review ran a front page cover and accompanying article declaring Huckabee unacceptable and putting him in the same class as Tom Ridge and Joe Lieberman. I somehow missed the outrage.

It should be noted that Mike Huckabee has said he’ll support John McCain no matter who is his Veep is. This is because Huckabee needs to work within the Republican Party if he wishes to have a future run and be able to make a difference in the country. I believe it’s legitimate for Huckabee supporters to vote differently than Huckabee advises, as that couple in Michigan told Huckabee, “It’s not about you.”

However, I think it’s another matter to demand Huckabee be given a prime time speaking role or the Veep spot. With McCain’s testy and oppositional nature, it’s likely to guarantee that Huckabee won’t be given a Veep spot and may not even be allowed to speak. This is only guaranteed to make Huckabee look bad. One needs look no further than how people’s reactions to Ron Paul were effected by his supporters to see that the actions of supporters have an impact on the electorate and the party as a whole.

As such, it would be appropriate for people to simply demand a Pro-Life Veep and leave the speaking at the convention up to Camp McCain. If Huckabee isn’t allowed to speak, it’s a slight and people can make of that what they may.

The bigger question is this: How do we move America forward? If all we can do is not support Senator McCain than we’ve done nothing. Not supporting someday doesn’t move us closer to saving an unborn child, doesn’t preserve marriage or family, doesn’t reform the tax code. In effect, it’s destructive not constructive.

People need to ask how they can move the country forward. If it is through political activism, I suggest that if they can’t support Senator McCain, they find a candidate for something somewhere they can support. And do your politics in a way that shows the best spirit of America, “Charity towards all, and malice towards none.” Forget the battles for the presidency when working with people at your local level. Those battles are over. Focus on building relationships and building bridges with people and learning how campaigns work and picking up political tidbits that will make you more effective.

Some mighty good folks voted for Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, Ron Paul, and John McCain during the last Republican Primary. They made a choice we didn’t like, but that doesn’t change their commitment and love of their country. Some of us already have buyer’s remorse. I know my $115 sent to Fred Thompson was not money well-spent. If we become part of the political process, we’ll have an opportunity when the time comes to make our case for Huckabee.

In the primaries, Lt. Governor Jim Risch (R-ID) endorsed Mitt Romney for President and Romney’s PAC Free and Strong America PAC supports the re-election of Rep. Bill Sali (R-ID) (who was neutral in the primaries). Now, I suppose if I wanted to be a bitter, I’d say that despite Jim Risch’s strong pro-life record that I wouldn’t support him in the General and that if Mitt Romney’s supporting Bill Sali than it’s better for Sali to lose and thus hurt Romney’s credibility.

Instead, I endorsed Jim Risch as the best candidate to serve Idaho in the U.S. Senate because he was and proudly support his election this fall. I know what type of man and what type of Congressman Bill Sali is, a true Conservative leader, and I’ve not only written blog posts in favor of Congressman Sali, I’ve written a guest blog post on Congressman Sali’s blog. When I get together fellow Republicans, I don’t waste my time arguing about the last primary or a nominee I’m not excited about, but I focus anything I say on issues that matter and the candidates I do support.

This is being constructive, not being destructive.

There are, of course, other ways to help the cause. Build blogs that are well-designed and informative. Find ways to build your audience so that you have influence on people’s votes. Run for office. Work extra hard and save money so that you have some to give to future campaigns. Work in the arts and in media. We all have a role to play in making our country better, and it won’t be achieved by being negative.

UPDATE

Per the comments at F3 Coalition, I certainly did not intend to suggest that everyone who supports Huckabee or is part of Huck’s Army is demanding a Veep Spot or a keynote address.  Certainly, that’s not the case. Unlike most posts, this one is only posted at F3 Coalition and here with the purpose of discussing what the best direction to take is for the campaign and not on The Next Right or other “general conservative sites.”  Huck’s Army has taken no official position to this effect and I’m sorry if anyone was confused.