Don't Stay Home!

I posted this over at WriteInFred.com:

With Mitt Romney suspending his campaign, it is a foregone conclusion that John McCain will be the Republican Party's nominee for the Presidency. If your state's primary is on the horizon, DON'T STAY HOME. It is crucial that we not show McCain or the party acceptance through silence. If Conservatives want to have a voice in a McCain White House or the Republican Party in the future, we must stand tall and be heard. Go to your primary and vote for Fred Thompson. If you have to write him in, do so. Now more than ever, it is imperative that we unite together and stand firm before our party is lost to liberalism forever.

John McCain came out and made an effort at mending fences with Conservatives yesterday. To all Conservatives, I remind you of a familiar phrase from Ronald Reagan, "trust, but verify". Those words could never be more poignant. We failed to unite and rally around one Conservative who values our Constitution, Sovereignty and Freedom. We failed to promote a candidate who truely believes in Free Speech, Secure Borders, Constructionist Judges, and the cause of Federalism. But all is not lost.

If we make our voices heard in the rest of the state primaries, McCain or the party can not dismiss our common cause. The Reagan Revolution and the Conservative Movement are not dead! Make McCain need our support in November, and make him EARN it. When he is in the White House and supporting Conservative issues, we should be his greatest supporters. But when he fails us, we should be his strongest critics. On every issue, every policy, every nuance and every speech... we must make the Conservative position heard. The President and the party must be accountable. Then in 2010 and 2012 we can begin to take back the Party that has left us and the country that is becoming lost.

For the good of our Constitution and our Country, we must continue to fight. We can take our country back!

Why Constitutional Ammendments Are Not The Answer.

Mike Huckabee has supported at least 3 different Constitutional Amendments during his campaign for the Presidency. He wants a Constitutional Amendment banning abortions, a Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage, and lately a Constitutional Amendment denying citizenship to people who were born here if their parents are here illegally. He apparently also wants to change the 16th Amendment as its current form would prohibit his Fair Tax proposal.

Let me make clear that I agree that we should stop abortions and that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. I also think that our current tax code needs to be repealed and something like a flat tax or the Fair Tax ought to replace it.

But agreeing with the principles does not mean I agree with the idea of Constitutional Amendments whenever we see a societal ill that needs repair.

Our country was founded to be a group of independent states that were joined together by a common defense and a restrained federal government that was representative of each individual state to act on behalf of the whole. It was formed like a co-op of businesses who group together to gain greater bargaining power, improved trade ability, and increased protection from external forces.

As such, our Constitution was written to grant only a limited number of necessary powers to the federal government, retaining most of the powers and rights to each individual state. That is why our union is called the United States of America. Even in our name we proclaim the value and power of the individual state.

It is with that history and those principles of limited federal government in mind that while I support stopping abortion I reject the idea of proposing a Constitutional Amendment at this time to do so.

It is liberal idea to increase government powers and write new laws to regulate behavior. It is a liberal idea to legislate in order to prevent activity. It is a liberal mindset that thinks the answer to all ills is increased legislation and a reduction of state's powers and personal liberty.

Just because I agree with a principle doesn't mean I agree with the means. Suggesting Constitutional Amendments to correct every principle we hold dear will lead to an even stronger federal government and a weakening of states' rights. And what happens when our principles are in the minority? Once we have set a precedent to use Constitutional Amendments to correct everything we think is wrong... what happens when people we disagree with are in the majority and create their own Amendments to protect against us?

A true conservative does not suggest a Constitutional Amendment to solve every problem, because a true conservative is serious about limited government and reduced federal powers. No matter how bad Huckabee and others want to convince you otherwise, the term "conservative" means something, and a limited federal government is at its core. Its not lip service, and its not something that can be dismissed on a whim... limited government is the central ideal on how all issues should be addressed.

Its sad that Mike Huckabee himself and his surrogates have misrepresented Fred Thompson's view on abortion and same sex marriage because he holds to his conservative principles. Its even more sad the many people calling themselves conservatives didn't see right through it.

Fred Thompson wants to stop abortion, protect the traditional definition of marriage, secure our borders and fix our tax code. He just doesn't want to sacrifice his principles and our Constitution to do so.

Make no mistake, the liberal precedent of legislating every issue is what needs to be stopped. Just because we like the issue doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to the method. Anyone who doesn't consider that before suggesting changes to our laws or Constitution is no conservative.

Fred Thompson is the only conservative in the Presidential race tonight. I pray that statement holds true tomorrow. The others remaining are unacceptable on the premise of conservatism and unworthy of our nation's highest post. And if we lose candidate Fred Thompson tomorrow because of this money and media controlled process, than it is Conservatives and our Constitution that have truly lost.

Conservatives, Its Time to Speak Up,

Mark Levin has written a wonderful piece about John McCain and why Conservatives need to speak up now. Below is an excerpt, read the whole thing here.

There are other reasons to speak out now, and loudly, against a McCain candidacy — before it is too late for the movement and the party. Do we conservatives believe in the Constitution or not? Do we believe in as much open political speech as possible or not? The McCain supporters rightly point out that free speech has never been a pure principle. But wild swings of change, aimed at empowering the federal government (or more particularly, incumbent politicians) against citizen activism prior to an election, is exceedingly imprudent. And prudence is a hallmark of conservative thought, or at least used to be. McCain-Feingold is without question the greatest assault on free political speech since Buckley v. Valeo, and is far more draconian. And, once again, McCain’s rhetoric as its leading advocate was dishonest. He repeatedly used the word “corruption” to describe those “forces” who aligned against his effort. As with Rumsfeld, he targeted a member of the Federal Election Commission, Bradley Smith, for disdain and worse. McCain filed a brief in the Supreme Court with several Democrats against the Wisconsin Right to Life organization challenging its right to run informative ads prior to an election. Wisconsin Right to Life won. Ironically, as best I can tell, this is the most aggressive action he has taken in all his years in Washington on the right-to-life issue, which probably explains why the vast majority of these groups have endorsed other candidates. The point is that McCain’s easy disregard of first principles, in this case political speech, runs deep with many conservatives and is not easily downplayed. (And the fact that President Bush signed the bill is no justification.)

Much has been written about the three legs of the conservative movement and how Mike Huckabee’s campaign has resonated with the family-values folks. Well, he doesn’t appear to have won over a majority of those voters. But I’ll leave that for another day. Much has been written about the national-security leg of the movement, including by VDH (albeit with its selective attention to aspects of the McCain record). But not enough attention is given to the economic leg, which has much to be concerned about in McCain. Some define McCain’s as a spending hawk for his efforts in ending earmarks and opposition to certain spending programs. But the McCain record is much more than that. As mentioned earlier, the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill was among the most irresponsible and reckless budgetary and economic legislative efforts of all time. Moreover, McCain has repeatedly demanded that federal power be used to tame perfectly legitimate private enterprises, from energy and pharmaceutical companies, to media companies and anything else he considers “corrupt” or “the enemy” or what have you. And as I first noted here, McCain’s claim during recent debates that he opposed the 2001/2003 Bush tax cuts because Congress refused to cut spending is highly misleading. Time and again McCain resorted to class warfare propaganda, asserting that he opposed the tax cuts because they “favored the rich.” He has embraced the same approach in the McCain-Kennedy-Edwards bill, a phony “patients’ bill of rights” that would essentially empower further the trial bar to sue insurance companies and other businesses involved in the provision of health care, including employers. And his “re-importation” of drugs position, which he claims will reduce the cost of prescriptions in our country, comes straight from Hillary Clinton’s heath-care task force. He would drive much needed research and development from those American companies that are inventing and producing most of the world’s life-saving and life-extending drugs.

McCain’s position on the environment is every bit as radical as any of the most liberal Democrats in the Senate. He would empower the federal government to regulate and tax the private sector in ways that it has never before. He is convinced that man is responsible for global warming, such as it is, and consequently the federal government must act to control man. McCain has proposed everything from a massive database of carbon emitters, capping carbon emissions, trading carbon emissions, taxing carbon emissions, and so forth. Of course, like most big-government politicians, little concern is paid to the Constitution or economic outcomes, including forcing more smoke-stack industries and their jobs offshore.

Will the real conservative please stand up?

If you have followed this blog, you have seen a metamorphosis from a man who struggled which of two candidates to support to a man who only believes in one. Those two candidates were Governor Mike Huckabee and Senator Fred Thompson. The later of the two has my utmost support to this day. The former has lost my support and is beginning to lose my respect.

I said that something about Governor Huckabee just didn't feel right... and the more I listened and learned about him the more uneasy I felt. That uneasiness has been gaining intensity as of late to the point that it has officially boiled over today. Instead of being the slightly lessor of two candidates, Governor Huckabee is now officially someone I could not and will not support. In a general election between him and one of the two democratic challengers I honestly don't know if I would hold my nose and vote for Mike or write in someone else. Governor Huckabee is not the conservative he claims he is... the more he talks the more he sounds like another former Arkansas Governor who changed his message based on his audience and polling data. I have no respect for someone who is running for office and has no consistency in their principles. As a Baptist minister I never thought that could be applied to Mike Huckabee... but today he proved there is no doubt... consistency is not in his vocabulary.

Today on CNN, Governor Huckabee said that the Constitution was a "living, breathing document" (about 3:55 into the video).



While on his campaign website, Governor Huckabee completely disagrees.

I firmly believe that the Constitution must be interpreted according to its original meaning, and flatly reject the notion of a “living Constitution.”

Calling the Constitution a "living" document is liberal-speak for saying that it can be changed, modified or adopted to reflect polls or public opinion. Calling it a "living" document makes way for activist judges to interpret the Constitution as they see fit instead of being "faithful adherents of originalism and textualism." (also a quote from Mike Huckabee's website that contradicts his CNN interview today).

Make no mistake, the "living" document argument is what liberals use to justify abandoning the second amendment... certainly the framers didn't anticipate semi-automatic weapons. The "living" document argument is what liberals use to justify abortion... certainly the framers weren't thinking about abortion when the guaranteed the protection of "life" and "liberty".

Thankfully there is a true conservative in the race today who believes in conservative principles and desires to uphold the original context of the Constitution. Thankfully, real conservatives have a choice. Fred Thompson is the only man in the race who believes in the strength of the Constitution and the guarantees within it. Fred Thompson will protect the Constitution and its ideals of limited government and appoint judges who will do the same. Fred wrote today:

I do not believe the Constitution is a living, breathing document. I am committed to appointing strict constructionist judges to the bench if I am elected President, strict constructionists who believe the Constitution has a fixed meaning that can be applied to cases that come before the courts today. They do NOT believe the Constitution is a “living, breathing document,” whose meaning, constantly changing with the sifting sands of our culture, can be determined and applied by unelected judges.

I fear that this loose language about our Constitution calls into question Governor Huckabee’s appreciation and understanding of the issue of judicial activism and raises questions as to what kind of judges he would appoint were he to become President.

We can not afford to have another Arkansas Governor in the White House who has no core principles and neither can our Constitution. Baptist Minister or not, Governor Huckabee is continuing to prove my uneasiness was right and that he is not the right man to become our President.

Conservatives have a choice. Someone who will fight to stop abortion and protect the Constitution from liberal activist re-writes. Support Fred Thompson, thankfully there is one consistent conservative to stand with us.