|
Banned
|
The choice is clear....or is it???
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...122302071.html
By Peter Wehner
Monday, December 24, 2007; Page A15
Some of us -- in my case, a political conservative and evangelical Christian -- are getting a queasy feeling when it comes to the presidential campaign of former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, and much of it has to do with his use of faith in this political campaign.
Many who don't know Huckabee were initially impressed with him, me included. He comes across as authentic and likable, humorous and self-deprecating. He is an excellent debater and a first-rate speaker. But if you look closely, a disturbing pattern emerges.
In Iowa, Huckabee advertised himself as a "Christian leader." A few months ago, when speaking to a large gathering of social conservatives in Washington, he told them, "I think it's important that the language of Zion is a mother tongue and not a recently acquired second language." When asked to explain his surge in the polls, he answered, "There's only one explanation for it, and it's not a human one. It's the same power that helped a little boy with two fish and five loaves feed a crowd of 5,000 people."...
.....This is a man who, in 1998, when explaining to a Baptist pastors conference why he got involved in politics, answered, "I got into politics because I knew government didn't have the real answers, that the real answers lie in accepting Jesus Christ into our lives. . . . I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ."
Now isn't that odd -- a former pastor who leaves his ministry so he can get involved in politics because he "knew government didn't have the real answers.",,,,
|
Quote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22342301/page/4/
‘Meet the Press’ transcript for Dec. 23, 2007
Representative Ron Paul (R-TX), John Harwood and Chuck Todd
......MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask you about race, because I, I read a speech you gave in 2004, the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act. And you said this: "Contrary to the claims of" "supporters of the Civil Rights Act of" '64, "the act did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of" '64 "increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty." That act gave equal rights to African-Americans to vote, to live, to go to lunch counters, and you seem to be criticizing it.
REP. PAUL: Well, we should do, we should do this at a federal level, at a federal lunch counter it'd be OK or for the military. Just think of how the government, you know, caused all the segregation in the military until after World War II. But when it comes, Tim, you're, you're, you're not compelled in your house to invade strangers that you don't like. So it's a property rights issue. And this idea that all private property is under the domain of the federal government I think is wrong. So this--I think even Barry Goldwater opposed that bill on the same property rights position, and that--and now this thing is totally out of control. If you happen to like to smoke a cigar, you know, the federal government's going to come down and say you're not allowed to do this.
MR. RUSSERT: But you would vote against...
REP. PAUL: So it's...
MR. RUSSERT: You would vote against the Civil Rights Act if, if it was today?
REP. PAUL: If it were written the same way, where the federal government's taken over property--has nothing to do with race relations. It just happens, Tim, that I get more support from black people today than any other Republican candidate, according to some statistics. And I have a great appeal to people who care about personal liberties and to those individuals who would like to get us out of wars. So it has nothing to do with racism, it has to do with the Constitution and private property rights.
MR. RUSSERT: I was intrigued by your comments about Abe Lincoln. "According to Paul, Abe Lincoln should never have gone to war; there were better ways of getting rid of slavery."
REP. PAUL: Absolutely. Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he shouldn't have gone, gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. I mean, it was the--that iron, iron fist..
MR. RUSSERT: We'd still have slavery.
REP. PAUL: Oh, come on, Tim. Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world. And the way I'm advising that it should have been done is do like the British empire did. You, you buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans and where it lingered for 100 years? I mean, the hatred and all that existed. So every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn't sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach.....
|
Did Ron Paul have any of the history of the start of the American Civil War close to what actually happened? Can you tell Huckabee apart from the Iranian president? Iowa is on Jan. 3, and New Hampshire's primary is on Jan. 8. Is Paul more squared away than Huckabee? |