Bothered for Babies’ Sake


I am bothered this morning about the current political climate in America in general and in the Republican party in particular.  I’m even bothered by the fact that politics bothers me so much.  But it does, and it bothers me because it is a reflection of the kind of people we are.  Our founding fathers knew that a democratic republic would reflect the character of its people.  Our nation would stand as a moral nation only as long as our people remained a moral people.

 

I wonder if we are a moral people.  According to some polls, 78% of Americans support abortions at least in some instances (rape, incest, health issues).  Only 5% oppose abortion absolutely.  What this means is that the overwhelming majority of us have found a way to justify killing children before they are born.  In America, we have killed 46 million babies, robbing them of life, robbing fathers of sons, robbing mothers of daughters, and robbing our culture of a basic respect for human life.

The Republican party platform calls for a human life amendment to the constitution in order to preserve human life in America.  Yet, the party seems to have decided that the human life amendment needs to remain buried or in the shadows, as it is uncomfortable to admit in polite company; you know, it’s such a hot-button issue and all.  I am tired of the pandering.

I am being told by conservative stalwarts—Rush, Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Hugh Hewitt, Bill Bennett—that Rudy and Mitt are the best candidates we have on the Republican side and that they are the true conservatives.  Mike Huckabee, we have been assured, is not a conservative.  I am not buying it.  Mitt Romney established government mandated healthcare in Massachusetts, which included abortions for a mere $50 co-pay (read more).  He installed a permanent member of Planned Parenthood on his health board. He thinks the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which includes the infamous “sexual orientation” clause, is a good idea for states to enact (see Meet the Press interview).  And he thinks government mandated health care is a good idea.  If he is a conservative, I’m Donald Duck’s mother!

As for Giuliani, he is what he is: a Pro-gay, pro-gun control, pro-abortion, New York Politician who has had trouble keeping marriages in tact.  I agree that he is tough on crime and tough against our enemies, but a conservative?  Come on!  Under the prevailing talk radio definition, Mitt and Rudy are conservative, while McCain and Huckabee are not.  Something is terribly wrong with the definitions here. 

And it is not merely a question of fiscal conservatism.  Mitt’s 500 million dollar increase in fees is more of an increase in 4 years than Huckabee’s tax increase over 10 years.  And, at least Huckabee had the courage to take the increase to the people of his state and allow them to vote on whether they would pay more.  Mitt imposed the fees without votes and brags that he has never voted for a tax increase.  Something’s not honest about his approach.

For my part, I can tolerate the risk of voting for someone who may not be as fiscally conservative as I would like, but I cannot take the risk of furthering the destruction of America by the slaughter of her children.  I cannot support someone who is politically expedient when it comes to such an important issue as the value of a human life.  And it goes to more than just the issue of abortion.  While it is true that the value we place on our children after they are born is reflected in our policies concerning how we treat them while they are developing in the womb, it is also true that the value we place on families is reflected in the way we define those families.  Marriage and family have been redefined by the institution of same sex marriages in Massachusetts.  Mitt Romney was the governor presiding over that state when this “legalization” took place (and there is much suspicion about his role in it, according to this article  ; and this one).

 

Mike Huckabee is by far the best choice for president from the Republican side.  I am extremely disappointed in the talk radio class, which appears—for all of its ranting against the bias and blindness of mainstream media—to have become blind and biased in its own peculiar way.  Talk radio and talking heads notwithstanding, I think the choice for president on the Republican side is as clear as it could possibly be:  Mike Huckabee.  Bill Kristol (though not a Huck fan) has seen the same thing and written about it in the New York Times:

Kristol writes, “For me… the most interesting moment in Saturday night’s Republican debate at St. Anselm College was when the candidates were asked what arguments they would make if they found themselves running against Obama in the general election.The best answer came, not surprisingly, from the best Republican campaigner so far — Mike Huckabee. He began by calmly mentioning his and Obama’s contrasting views on issues from guns to life to same-sex marriage. This served to remind Republicans that these contrasts have been central to G.O.P. success over the last quarter-century, and to suggest that Huckabee could credibly and comfortably make the socially conservative case in an electorally advantageous way.”

Would you consider joining me and others in supporting Mike Huckabee by making even a small donation today? Do it for the sake of babies. 

G C
My Goal:
$100.00
Join NowContribute

One thought on “Bothered for Babies’ Sake

  1. Pingback: Baby Names » Bothered for Babies’ Sake Doc Cochran’s Weblog

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s