Today is a day to sit down and reflect on all the blessings that we have. One thing I know that we all have in common, is the blessing of a free country. A safe country. Men and women risking their lives on the other side of the world to protect us. We have these and many more blessings in common.

Yet these blessings are under attack. We can sit here today and merely appreciate them, or we can resolve to do something to protect them.

We have an open, unprotected border. We have millions of illegals taking jobs Americans want, and living off of our tax dollars without paying taxes themselves. In the upcoming election, we have a Senator from Tennessee that spent much of his career making it easy for illegals to work here. We have a Senator and Vietnam veteran who led the charge to give amnesty to illegals and put off building the fence. We have a mayor of NYC who stood up for sanctuary city policies. We have a governor from one of the most liberal states in the union.

Duncan Hunter is the one to stand up for a secure border. He built a border fence in San Diego, and has a perfect rating from Americans for Better Immigration because he has NEVER voted for amnesty, and has stood up for increased penalties on companies that hire illegals.

Many of us are thankful today for the blessing of having families that love us. Today, two border patrol agents sit in prison while their familes gather for Thanksgiving Day. The crime of these agents? They were doing their job, protecting our country from a dangerous, illegal alien trying to cross the border. The other day, President Bush pardoned two turkeys for Thanksgiving…while two of our patriots remain imprisoned away from their families.

Duncan Hunter promises to pardon Ramos and Compean when he is elected president. No other candidate has made such a promise. And while all the other candidates have been sitting with their consultants figuring out how to appear conservative, Duncan Hunter was writing a letter urging President Bush to pardon Ramos and Compean for Thanksgiving.

Right now, we have a trade deficit that is growing by 20 billion dollars a year. We are losing jobs by the truckload. We have nearly no manufacturers, which provide high-paying jobs and American quality equipment for our troops. The reason for this catastrophe? Most Favored Nation trade status with China, where we are being cheated by millions of trade dollars… trade dollars that are being used by China to build missiles, ships, rockets, guns, and selling a lot of them to insurgents that are killing our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Duncan Hunter is the ONLY candidate to have voted against Most Favored Nation trade status, predicting all the problems it would create. Fred Thompson voted yes. John McCain voted yes. Ron Paul voted yes and said he would do it again. Tom Tancredo voted yes (but in his defense, he admits that it was a mistake). Mike Huckabee is extremely happy that China is now becoming part of the mainstream
Duncan Hunter tried to pass a bill that would force China to play by the rules, and as president promises to fix these bad trade deals.

Government spending is out of control, while we continue to exhibit less stewardship in our defense spending.

Duncan Hunter is a stickler for making sure we have the weapons and equipment our military needs, and for cutting spending elsewhere. Duncan will support an amendment to require a balanced budget, and for drastically cutting all other spending so we may increase defense spending.

1/3 of my generation has been killed. 1/3 of my generation is missing right now. 1/3 of my generation was aborted. Right now, more children have been aborted in the United States than the numbers of deaths under Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini combined.

Fred Thompson does not support a constitutional amendment to protect the unborn, saying that it should be left up to the states. In other words, the rights of the state usurp the rights of human beings. Or maybe Fred doesn’t believe they’re human beings. Rudy Giuliani is adamantly pro-choice. Mitt Romney used to be very pro-choice, and who knows if he will “change his mind” again. Duncan Hunter wrote a bill to define life at conception, which would make the 14th amendment of the Constitution apply to protect the unborn. Duncan Hunter will continue work for that bill, or a Constitutional amendment to protect life, and will not elect a judge unless they can see a sonagram and see a valuable, precious, human life.

Duncan Hunter supports school vouchers which places education back into the hands of the parents.

Duncan Hunter supports a constitutional amendment to protect marriage.

Duncan Hunter supports, and was an original co-sponsor of the Fair Tax

Duncan Hunter supports low taxes.

Duncan Hunter supports our troops.

Duncan Hunter was labeled an enemy by a Soviet Union newspaper, during the Cold War.

Duncan Hunter worked alongside Ronald Reagan.

Yes, we have many great blessings to be grateful for… but take a moment today not just to reflect upon what we have, but what we’re losing and what we must do to protect it.

Duncan Hunter is wrapping up a big fund-raiser this month to give him that last big push so the people can find out who Duncan Hunter is. Instead of going out and shopping tomorrow (and buying hundreds of dollars in Chinese-made products), give some money to Duncan’s campaign. Give a little to the only candidate standing up for the strength and prosperity of this country and for ending the things in the way.

<embed>< src=”http://lads.myspace.com/flash/Donation/DonationBadge_Blue_Hunter.swf” quality=”high” bgcolor=”#ffffff” width=”290″ height=”153″ name=”DonationBadge” type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” pluginspage=”http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer”/></embed>

(If you can’t see the embeded donation link, go here: https://contribute.gohunter08.com/contribute.asp )

Some say that Duncan can’t win. By saying that, however, you’re only becoming part of the problem you’re complaining of. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. Stop being a part of the problem you’re complaining about. Stand up for what’s RIGHT, and what’s RIGHT can win.

Keep on Hunting, and may the Lord bless you and yours, and our great country, on this Thanksgiving day;

SK Johnson

http://conservativeupdate.blogspot.com/2007/11/gop-presidential-prospects.html

GOP Presidential Prospects
The current field of candidates for the GOP Presidential nomination is amusing at best. We have a liberal (Giuliani) who has long been the front runner, a bunch of candidates who are Conservative one week and liberal the next, and a few true Conservatives. Huckabee and Thompson qualify as Conservatives but I think Hunter is the most conservative of the group. Is it not interesting that the one true “Reagan like” Conservative is so purposely ignored by the media??????
I could see Ron Paul choosing Dennis Kucinich as his running mate if he got the nomination. They could sit in the Oval Office and discuss UFO’s and how the US Government pulled off the 9/11 attacks. What a conversation that would be.
Romney is packaging himself as a Conservative to try and get the nomination as a Republican. I read an interesting article that summed up my thoughts on him. It can be found at: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GreggJackson/2007/11/09/romney_secrets_the_media_are_hiding_from_you
McCain is……….well………McCain.
I would like to see someone who is unashamedly a Christian Conservative leader with an unwavering record on the “Conservative Issues” such as National Security, Family, Marriage, Abortion, Taxes and the Economy. The only candidate that truly fits that bill so far is Duncan Hunter. I guess that is why he is being purposely ignored in the sorry excuse for media that is out there while their liberal candidates are being promoted.
It is going to get very interesting between now and the elections. Especially by the somewhat vicious attacks the liberals are making on their own candidates. Do I detect some disgruntled donkeys out there?

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DouglasMacKinnon/2007/10/30/ten_things_the_republican_nominee_must_understand_to_earn_the_true_conservative_vote?page=full&trackbacks=true#commentAnchor

Ten Things the Republican Nominee Must Understand to Earn the True Conservative Vote
By Douglas MacKinnon
Tuesday, October 30, 2007

1. First and foremost, he needs to understand that, by the tens of millions, true conservatives do exist in our country. That their unbending beliefs make them — not only the backbone of this nation — but the hope for a better future. That they unashamedly love their country and have reached the point of no return with regard to political correctness and pandering politicians who place themselves above the welfare of our Republic.

2. He needs to understand that they have a deep and abiding belief in God. A belief that is under a daily, escalating and obscene assault from those on the left who only use the word “Christian” as an insult, a punch line, or as an identifier to be added to a blacklist to deny employment at most schools, colleges, newspapers, and television networks. He needs to understand that this is a belief that must be acknowledged, respected, and defended. He needs to understand that all life is sacred and that it begins at conception.

3. He needs to understand that true conservatives believe we live in a sovereign nation with clearly defined borders that must be protected. Period. He must understand that the invasion of illegal aliens is not only a threat to that sovereignty, but widens the pathway for terrorists to infiltrate our nation. A scenario that the House Committee on Homeland Security has already documented as becoming a reality. He needs to accept that there are those in our country who would turn the United States of America into part of a “North American Union.” A suicidal strategy that was recently pushed and admitted to by former Mexican President Vicente Fox.

4. He needs to understand that we are engaged in a world-wide war against Jihadists and extremists who mean to wipe our nation off the face of the Earth. For that reason and more, it is imperative that we retain a national defense that is second to none. He needs to understand that true conservatives believe that the young men and women who serve in our military represent the very best of our nation and must be given every consideration. That without their heroic service, we will be vanquished.

5. He needs to understand that true conservatives do believe that large segments of the entertainment industry are purposefully and systematically exposing our children to the vilest forms of smut. That they do so first, to make money, and second, to indoctrinate as they continue their quest to subvert the morals, ethics, and character of our nation.

6. He needs to understand that true conservatives actually do believe in lower taxes and fiscal responsibility. That if you proclaim yourself to be a “Conservative” and turn your back on these tenets, then you are worse than those on the left who believe in neither. He needs to understand that true conservatives understand the value of limited government and expect their leaders to be just as enlightened.

7. He needs to understand that true conservatives believe in strict enforcement of the rule of law. That aside from the terrorists from without, our nation is at war with hundreds of thousands of violent gang members from within. That in many cases, these gangs are aligning themselves with drug cartels, terrorist groups and foreign nations. That if we don’t acknowledge this war and win it, then many of our cities and much of our border, will spiral into lawlessness and unchecked murder as these gangs prevail.

8. He needs to understand that the appointment of judges is an overriding issue for true conservatives. That they believe in having a strict-constructionist Supreme Court. That there can be no compromise in this area.

9. He needs to understand that if he panders to them now to win the nomination and then stabs them in the back to try and win the general election, he has lost them forever.

10. And finally, he has to understand that true conservatives will never vote for the “lesser of two evils” come November of 2008. That to do so, would be to betray all that they hold sacred. Faith, family values, and conviction can never be compromised.
Douglas MacKinnon is a former White House and Pentagon official and author of the novel, America’s Last Days .

Be the first to read Douglas MacKinnon’s column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Copyright © 2006 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

——

Response to Douglas MacKinnon’s column: “Ten Things the Republican Nominee Must Understand to Earn the True Conservative Vote”

The above column, I believe, is a fantastic representation of the facts about this election. It summarizes very simply what this election is about, or in what it SHOULD be about. A candidate can win the nomination without listening to the above points, but not following those steps will make it difficult if not impossible to win the general election. The past 8 years we have had what most conservatives would call a so-so president

http://rss.townhall.com/trackback/www/fc05823e-6680-465c-bb5d-34f602ce7ff9/

—–

In response to this wonderful article, I am laying out how Duncan Hunter is the ONLY candidate to fulfill these 10 criteria.

1. Duncan Hunter has never fallen sway to political correctness.  He has regularly been the Congressman going against the crowd, standing up for what’s best for the people, not for the increasingly moderate to liberal elite.   He has never backed down on abortion, promising to send any judicial nominations through a litmus test to see if they can look at a sonargram and see the life of a human, before appointing them.   When Ronald Reagan ran for president, we learned how strong conservatism is in this country and what happens when conservatives are inspired to do what’s right.  Just the other day, we saw Bobby Jindal who appeared as “too conservative” have a flourishing victory in Louisiana.  Conservatism wins when a conservative runs.  All the candidates besides Congressman Hunter have been wish-woshy on at least a few key issues.  Rudy Giuliani is pro-choice, pro-gay, and anti-gun.  Fred Thompson is in favor of campaign finance reform, minimum wage increases, ‘path-to-citizenship’ for illegals, and is against a constitutional amendment to protect the unborn.  Mitt Romney is the greatest flip-flop since John Kerry.  Mike Huckabee supports the SCHIP, food regulations, ‘open door’ border policies, big public education, pandering to the NEA, federal funding for alternative fuel sources, and etc….  The list goes on and on.  Duncan Hunter is consistent, and conservative, and will not apologize for his beliefs or his country

2. Duncan Hunter understands that Christianity is under attack.  When the ACLU threatened a monument at a veteran’s cemetery because it had Christian symbols, Duncan Hunter rose up against them and put a bill through congress to stop the ACLU in its tracks.  As for abortion, Congressman Hunter has been spending many years trying to push through ‘life at conception’ legislation that would define life at conception in the Constitution.

3. Duncan Hunter, alongside Tom Tancredo, has been the leader in border security.  Duncan Hunter worked very closely with Ronald Reagan during his administration, and worked as his go-for in Congress.  Yet when Reagan supported a version of amnesty, Duncan opposed it predicting there would be a rush for our unprotected borders.  Ronald Reagan later said that Duncan was right, but it was too late.  Ever since, Duncan Hunter has been working to correct this problem.  He built a border fence in his district in San Diego that cut crime by around 35% (according to the FBI), and cut human and drug trafficking by 90%.  He also wrote and helped pass legislation to build the same fence across the rest of the border, and we are still waiting for President Bush to hold up his end of the deal and get it done.  Duncan has also been adamantly against NAFTA, and the North American Union.  He voted against the inception of NAFTA predicting it would only compound our border problems.  He was right, and he has been working to stop NAFTA’s attempts to build a superhighway.

4. Duncan Hunter is not a low-tax, big-spend Republican.  But he believes in a strong national defense.  He intends to cut spending in all areas except for defense, following the Goldwater and Reagan philosophy of Peace Through Strength.  He served as the Chairman of the Armed Services committee, and knows how to build up a good national defense.  He understands the stakes of the war we are in, and has been an unabashed supporter of the war on terror.

5. Duncan Hunter understands the dangers of inappropriate material reaching our children.  That’s why he wrote the Parent’s Empowerment Act which provided parents the opportunity to sue organizations and companies for releasing pornographic, or otherwise inappropriate, material in the presence of children, and making it accessible to them.  Hunter was well commended by Focus on the Family for this monumental achievement.

6. Duncan Hunter has a 92% lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union.  He also had these words to say in an interview several months ago, and I believe they say it all: “I would like to see a country where the day I walk out of the White House, after a couple of terms, the American people are more independent of government than the day that I walked in.”

7. Border security is a key to keeping our country safe, it is how gangs are able to come across into our country and are able to smuggle drugs.  Hunter’s commitment to border security, and national security as a whole will not waver when he enters the oval office.

8. Duncan Hunter has made a promise to elect strict, constructionist judges.  As I mentioned before, he promises to put any potential appointees through a litmus test where they are shown a picture of an unborn baby.  If they do not see a valuable human life, they will not be appointed to the bench.

9. For 25 years, Duncan Hunter has held the most consistent, conservative record of anyone in the current race.  He has never backed down on a single issue.  He has never flip-flopped.  He has never made reckless, careless, uninformed decisions.  He sticks up for what he believes.  He walks the walk.

10. The people of America will not vote for the lesser of two evils in November of 2008.  That’s why we almost lost in Bush vs. Gore and Bush vs. Kerry.  That’s why Bush senior lost.  That’s why President Ford lost.  That’s why Clinton won against Dole.  Many Republicans are not realizing that conservatism=electability.  This is our opportunity to place someone on the Republican ticket that can win.  Not one who is playing the role of a conservative, because that person will lose if they are found out.  Duncan Hunter is the one who can live up to this responsibility, and lead our country into a new age of prosperity.  Reagan Country is BACK .

Duncan Hunter has perfect ratings from Concerned Women for America, The National Right To Life, Americans for Better Immigration, and the NRA.

DH08 or Bust.

[Editor's note: This is a FANTASTIC article stating how true conservatism still wins, and despite the work of the moderate Republican insiders, we can still push Duncan Hunter into place to upset this election and the moderates who believe they have this election clinched.  Just like we were able to stop amnesty in Congress by rising up against the status quo.  We can do it]

http://www.webcommentary.com/asp/ShowArticle.asp?id=adamoc&date=071107

Jindal Victory: A Strategic GOP Misstep?
Bobby Jindal’s philosophically consistent and unapologetic conservatism clearly did not prove to be a liability. On the contrary, in a field of eleven candidates, it was Jindal’s blunt and unwavering assertion of “traditional values” that decisively separated him from the rest of the field.
The election of Congressman Bobby Jindal (R.-LA) as Governor of Louisiana should stand as the defining picture of the current political landscape, and how it must be navigated by aspiring Republican candidates if they are to have ay hope of victory. In a state where, despite going “red” in the past two presidential elections, the Democrat Party machine has dominated to the point of being a political monopoly for decades (only two other Republicans have held the governor’s office since Reconstruction), Jindal won an overwhelming victory against a field of eleven opponents.

Like much of the rest of its state government, Louisiana’s electoral process operates on a far different basis than the other states. No primary elections are held. Instead, all candidates must face a general election “cattle call.” If no candidate receives a majority vote on the first round, the process is repeated among the top vote getters until somebody accrues greater than fifty percent of the vote.

In this melee of jockeying politicians, Jindal left his competition in the dust on the first round. But what bodes ill for establishment Republicans throughout the nation, and particularly in relation to the upcoming presidential race, is that he did so by pursuing a political course that runs diametrically opposed to their “conventional wisdom.”

Despite the fact that Jindal’s approach proved overwhelmingly effective, the party insiders refuse to be dissuaded from their unworkable “strategy,” which involves the perverted version of Reagan’s “Big Tent” that pretends to stand for everything, while hoping the base does not realize that it actually stands for nothing. And it promises to be every bit the guaranteed loser during this election cycle that it ever has been.

Consider Jindal’s position on the “controversial” issues of the day. He is as staunchly pro-life as he can possibly be, and is bold and unapologetic about it. On illegal immigration, he rejects any watered-down policy, aimed at finding “middle ground,” and steadfastly supports measures to restore the integrity and sovereignty of the United States and its borders.

Moreover, he ran on a platform that proactively confronted the corruption in Louisiana government, blaming it, and not President Bush and FEMA, for the unnecessary disasters, misery, and suffering related to Hurricane Katrina. Such a stance, if we are to believe the “conventional wisdom” of the day, should have been soundly rejected by the people of Louisiana who ought instead to be basking in their ill fortune and the flood of federal pork it has provided.

Apparently, citizens of the Pelican State want something more. Perhaps they actually intend to correct the problems and better their lives, rather than continue accepting the tired liberal/Democrat mantras that predictably assert more good money after bad as the only workable fix. As a result, the people of Louisiana see Bobby Jindal as the person to address such issues with an eye towards actually improving life for themselves and their posterity.

His philosophically consistent and unapologetic conservatism clearly did not prove to be a liability. On the contrary, in a field of eleven candidates, it was Jindal’s blunt and unwavering assertion of “traditional values” that decisively separated him from the rest of the field.

During his congressional race of three years ago, Jindal engaged the assistance of grassroots Christian and conservative youth organizations such as Student Project and Generation Joshua. Ignoring fears of their “polarizing” effect on his campaign, he won handily, upholding their Judeo-Christian values as a hallmark of his terms in office.

In this lies a stern lesson for the Republican Party, which faces the daunting possibility of a “third party” candidacy during next year’s presidential race. In the minds of most, such an event would spell doom for the Republican candidate. But, as Governor-elect Jindal proved, this need not be a foregone conclusion.

To begin with, Republicans need to ask themselves why they, and not the Democrats, should so stridently fear the emergence of a third party. In truth, the very nature of this concern is an indictment of their political posturing and flawed “strategizing” of recent years.

A believable and well-defined candidate will assemble a well-defined base. Whether the remaining voting populace is then divided among two remaining alternatives or eleven, such a candidate ought to retain the loyalties of that base. It is only when the “support” for a candidate is founded on the murky premise of ostensibly being the “lesser of two evils” that it can suddenly evaporate in the presence of any seemingly worthy alternative.

Thus, undaunted by the field of aspiring gubernatorial candidates, Jindal knew he did not need to try to appeal to the great “middle,” nor was it in his nature to do so. Instead, he ran on a conservative platform only matched among the field of Presidential candidates by California Representative Duncan Hunter.

Of course Hunter, strapped for funds and struggling among the “second tier” candidates during the primary season, is not considered a serious candidate by the party “insiders.” Yet he handily won the Texas and Arizona straw polls, and proved a surprisingly strong contender in South Carolina.

The other “front runners” among the GOP continue to bob and weave in hopes of proving their connection to real America, just as frequently abandoning conservative principle as trying to convince the electorate that, despite the evidence, it has always been the heart and soul of their political philosophy. Perhaps, before it is too late, a worthy lesson can be learned by following the courageous and stunningly successful example of the new Governor of Louisiana.

Christopher G. Adamo
http://chrisadamo.com

Here are a few things Mike Huckabee has said about Immigration in the past. Though I do have some respect for some of Huckabee’s common sense, even on certain issues of immigration, the following illustrates some comments he has made and positions he has taken that are worth raising an eyebrow over.

—–

“I would hope that no matter who we are, or where we are from, that America should always be a place that opens its arms, opens it heart, opens its spirit to people who come because they want the best for their families …,” -Mike Huckabee [spoken along with Tyson Foods Inc. Chairman and CEO John Tyson, at a noon luncheon of the League of United Latin American Citizens]

“‘Pretty soon, Southern white guys like me may be in the minority,’ Huckabee said jokingly as the crowd roared in laughter. He told the LULAC delegates that their presence in the state’s capital city was very important because Arkansas has one of the fastest growing Hispanic populations in the nation. ‘Your gathering is so very significant for our state,’ Huckabee said. ‘We are delighted to have you.’”

June 30, 2005; Arkansas News Bureau

——

Gov. Mike Huckabee on Thursday heaped criticism upon immigration legislation in the Arkansas Legislature, describing it as “inflammatory . . . race-baiting and demagoguery.” He also challenged the Christian values of its main sponsor.

Huckabee said the bill, seeking to forbid public assistance and voting rights to undocumented immigrants, “inflames those who are racist and bigots and makes them think there’s a real problem. But there’s not.”

The bill is modeled after Proposition 200, approved by Arizona voters in November. The Arkansas measure was filed by Republican Sens. Jim Holt of Springdale and Denny Altes of Fort Smith.

Huckabee, also a Republican and a Baptist minister, said Arkansans should be welcoming hard-working immigrants of all races. He singled out Holt, who often talks of his strong Christian beliefs, saying, “I drink a different kind of Jesus juice. My faith says don’t make false accusations against somebody.

“In the Bible, it’s called don’t bear false witness.”

In response, Holt said he was hurt by the governor’s questioning his faith.

“I just want to uphold the law and protect the benefits that apply to citizens,” Holt said.

Arkansas News: http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2005/01/28/News/316347.html

——-

Gov. Mike Huckabee Thursday denounced a bill by Sen. Jim Holt that would deny state benefits to illegal immigrants as un-Christian, un-American, irresponsible and anti-life. Holt, R-Springdale, replied later that Christian charity does not include turning a blind eye to lawbreaking.

Senate Bill 206, filed Wednesday, also would require proof of citizenzhip to register to vote and would require state agencies to report suspected cases of people living in the country illegally.

…

Holt replied, “I think the politically correct movement has misconstrued what compassion really means. They think compassion means that any person can disrespect our laws and that we’re supposed to be tolerant and let them get away with it.

“True compassion is correcting them so in the future they can be law-abiding citizens,” Holt said.

“They broke the law,” he said. “My angst is not with them, though. My angst is with the state and federal government for not enforcing our laws.”

People living illegally in the United State has “overwhelmed our school and welfare system,” McCutchen said. As for whether the bill reflects un-Christian attitudes, McCutchen said: “Jim Holt is as good a man and as good a Christian as any man walking this Earth.”

“Doggone it, the rule of law is not being upheld, and that’s wrong,” McCutchen said.

Arkansas News: http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2005/01/28/News/316347.html

——-

Huckabee sponsored the Southern Governors’ Association resolution:

• Whereas, agriculture, which has critical importance in the South not only to our economy, but to our regional and cultural identify and way of life, is facing rapid changes in technology and an increasing global economy; and,
• Whereas, the cost of government commodity programs has varied in recent years between $5 billion and $26 billion in nominal terms, and removed acreage from production thus reducing the cost effectiveness of the program; and,
• Whereas, global trade is crucial to the survival of American agriculture, calling for fair application and enforcement of current and future trade agreements to secure a level playing field for exporters of U.S. food and fiber; and,
• Whereas, agricultural labor shortages, complicated by U.S. federal immigration policy, continue to plague the South, now, therefore, be it
• Resolved, That the Southern Governors’ Association, with respect to the 2002 farm bill, urges Congress and the Administration to:
  • Make commodity program payments, production agreements, limitations, and quotas, belong to and follow the producer, rather than the landowner — taking care not to violate WTO agreements;
  • Continue Loan Deficiency Payments and marketing assistance loans to protect farmers against price levels below the Marketing Loan rate.
  • Enact agricultural federal tax incentives — reducing local property taxes for small producers in high tax areas — so farmers can continue to farm rather than sell land for other uses as well as other tax provisions for environmental/conservation improvements, agriculture research and donations of commodities to charitable organizations;
  • Work together to ensure fair application of current and future trade agreements that will open the door to new foreign markets;
  • Implement a farm labor system, based on the agreement between Canada and Mexico, which will provide an orderly, efficient way to import farm workers.

  (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Mike_Huckabee_Immigration.htm)

——————

“I didn’t sign the ‘No Amnesty’ pledge because it was a silly piece of campaign propaganda cooked up by Tancredo. Candidates don’t make pledges for each other to sign, and he knows that.”-Mike Huckabee August 4, 2007 http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=196021

—–

What you do say is you’re going to pay the fine, we’re going to have a system that can be done in an orderly fashion, and you’ll be able to be legal but we’re not going to let you off scot free. That’s important.” -Mike Huckabee March 27, 2007; RealClearPolitics.com

—–

“We need to create a process to allow people to come here to do the jobs – plucking chickens, tarring roofs, picking fruits – that are going unfilled by our citizens.’” MikeHuckabee.com

—-

“He [Mike Huckabee] also made the insane point that companies like Toyota would not invest in Arkansas if the state didn’t allow non-citizens to vote because it would “send the message that, essentially, ‘If you don’t look like us, talk like us and speak like us, we don’t want you.’” -Ann Coulter [http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2007/10/10/fred_sawyer_and_huckabee_finn]

—-

“You know, I’ve never hated the Clintons. I still don’t, I have great respect for them” -Mike Huckabee

(I just had to throw that one in there)

—

“I do believe that some of [the opposition to the McCain-Kennedy-Bush Amnesty Bill] is driven by racism or nativism. It’s not amnesty to make people pay for breaking the law” -Wash. Times May, 2006

—–

(Trade with China, according to some, is connected indirectly to our immigration problem. The argument (which I have not researched enough to be sure of myself, but I generally agree with because of the trust I place in those who have advocated this theory, as well as the common sense of it), NAFTA, which encourages open borders is ultimately helping Communist China increase trade with Mexico and put more goods into the United States. It even would allow for China to ship goods through Mexico that would not be checked by inspectors until it’s well into American soil according to the NAFTA superhighway plan. China is also using their current trade status to sell weapons to our enemies in Afghanistan, Iran, and the Iraqi insurgents. This could even come back to our border problems with these weapons ending up in the hands of terrorist cells using our open borders to get into our country. More info can be found at http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16407 In light of that information, here are a couple of quotes from Mike Huckabee on trade with China)

“As governors who are working hard to improve living standards for all Americans, we urge your support of PNTR status for China. The commitments China made during the WTO negotiations with the United States promise to open new markets and create tremendous opportunities for American workers. China’s accession to the WTO is a vital step in its incorporation into the rules-based multilateral trading system. This move will strengthen the rule of law and accelerate domestic reforms in China. The long-term political and social impacts of China’s accessionmay even exceed the commercial benefits”. -Mike Huckabee; Letter to Congress – March 2000)

“The good news is that China is becoming much more a part of the mainstream. In its economic development and even in giving greater liberties to its people”. -Mike Huckabee; Time Magazine – April 2007

 Republican Party of Iowa to host presidential debate in DES MOINES

Debate to be nationally televised by FOX NEWS CHANNEL

The Republican Party of Iowa announced today that it will hold its
presidential debate at Hy-Vee Hall in downtown Des Moines. The event, to be
held the evening of December 4, 2007, will be the first debate in Iowa to be
televised by FOX News Channel this election season, as well as the first
debate sponsored by the Republican Party of Iowa.

Republican Party of Iowa Chairman Ray Hoffmann said, “With the caucuses less
than a month away, our December 4 debate will be very telling to Iowans and
the nation. We are thrilled to be having this event in central Iowa, and
right in downtown Des Moines which will be the epicenter on caucus night.”

The debate will be limited to those candidates who have satisfied the
following criteria:

1. Announced a formal campaign for President: and

2. Filed the necessary paperwork with the Federal Election Commission; and

3. Met all U.S. constitutional requirements; and

****4. Garnered at least 5% of the national electorate as determined by an
average of the most recent national telephone polls of registered voters
conducted by non-partisan public opinion polling organizations leading up to
the registration deadline as determined by Fox News Channel and the
Republican Party of Iowa or garnered an average of at least 5% in the most
recent polls of Iowa voters conducted by the American Research Group and the
Des Moines Register.*****
To exclude candidates is a slap in the face of the grassroots of America who have a right to choose a good candidate, and to exclude someone based upon their poll numbers limits Americans’ ability to see all the candidates available.  This gives them unprecedented control over the election, by keeping the status quo for the top tier the same.  Please e-mail the Iowa GOP by contacting them through the website below, and let them know what we think:

http://www.iowagop.net/

 http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20071102.html

Christians Need To Beware Of Mike Huckabee
by Chuck Baldwin
November 2, 2007

With Christian conservatives trying to scramble to find a Republican presidential candidate they can support, some of them seem to be coalescing around former Arkansas governor, Mike Huckabee. Janet Folger, especially, seems to be trumpeting his candidacy. But is Mike Huckabee someone Christian conservatives should be supporting? Not everyone thinks so.

Randy Minton, chairman of the Arkansas chapter of Phyllis Schlafly’s national Eagle Forum, said, “We called him a pro-life, pro-gun liberal, when I was in the state legislature and he was governor.” Phyllis Schlafly herself was even more direct.

President and Founder of Eagle Forum, Phyllis Schlafly, said this about Governor Huckabee: “He destroyed the conservative movement in Arkansas, and left the Republican Party a shambles.” She went on to say, “Yet some of the same evangelicals who sold us on George W. Bush as a ‘compassionate conservative’ are now trying to sell us on Mike Huckabee.”

Even one of Huckabee’s strongest supporters within the Religious Right, Pastor Rick Scarborough, head of Vision America, admitted, “Mike has always sought the validation of elites.” Of course, my question for Rick Scarborough is, With an indictment such as that, how can you continue to support Mike Huckabee?

According to an opinion piece written by John Fund in the Wall Street Journal, “Paul Pressler, a former Texas judge who led the conservative Southern Baptist revolt, told me, ‘I know of no conservative he [Huckabee] appointed while he headed the Arkansas Baptist Convention.’”

Fund went on to say that “Mr. Huckabee’s reluctance to surround himself with conservatives was evident as governor, when he kept many agency heads appointed by Bill Clinton.”

Fund also said this about Huckabee: “‘He’s just like Bill Clinton in that he practices management by news cycle,’ a former top Huckabee aide told me. ‘As with Clinton there was no long-term planning, just putting out fires on a daily basis. One thing I’ll guarantee is that won’t lead to competent conservative governance.’”

Mike Huckabee is also terrible on immigration. According to Jim Boulet, Jr., executive director of English First, “Rudy Giuliani spent years defending the right of New York City to remain a sanctuary for illegal aliens. Yet Giuliani was a veritable Lou Dobbs Jr. on illegal immigration in comparison to Mike Huckabee.”

Regarding Huckabee’s stance on immigration, Mr. Minton said, “Until of late, he has been an open-borders guy on immigration–amnesty, the whole works. As governor, he wanted to give free college scholarships to all illegals.”

Minton’s assertion is backed up by Daniel Larison at The American Conservative. He said, “Like his fellow presidential candidate [who recently dropped out of the race], Sen. Sam Brownback, Huckabee regards it as his Christian duty to help subvert and liberalize U.S. immigration laws. Together, they embrace the notion that fidelity to the Gospel requires privileging the interests of non-citizens over those of fellow citizens.”

Ann Coulter agrees: “On illegal immigration, Huckabee makes George Bush sound like Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO). Huckabee has compared illegal aliens to slaves brought here in chains from Africa, saying, ‘I think, frankly, the Lord is giving us a second chance to do better than we did before.’

“Toward that end, when an Arkansas legislator introduced a bill that would prevent illegal aliens from voting and receiving state benefits, Huckabee denounced the bill, saying it would rile up ‘those who are racist and bigots.’

“He also made the insane point that companies such as Toyota would not invest in Arkansas if the state didn’t allow non-citizens to vote, because it would ’send the message that, essentially, “If you don’t look like us, talk like us and speak like us, we don’t want you.”‘

“Like all the (other) Democratic candidates for President, he supports a federal law to ban smoking–unless you’re an illegal alien smoking at a Toyota plant.”

A former state lawmaker, Minton also said, that Huckabee was not a “fiscally conservative Republican.” Rather, Huckabee was regarded as just another liberal “tax and spender” in fiscal matters. This is in direct opposition to Huckabee’s boast of “90 tax cuts during his tenure.” And the facts seem to validate Minton, not Huckabee.

An Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration report showed a “net tax increase of $505 million, a figure adjusted for inflation and economic growth” on Huckabee’s watch.

That Huckabee is a liberal “tax and spender” is also affirmed by Tom Roeser. According to Roeser, “[Huckabee] hiked state spending 65.3%, from 1996 to 2004. He supported five tax increases, leading the ‘Club for Growth’ to call him a liberal in disguise . . .”

Roeser also points out that “The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank with heavy ties to the national GOP, gives him an F grade for spending and taxes in 2006 and an overall grade of D in his governorship. During his tenure, the number of state employees increased over 20% and Arkansas’ general obligation debt rose by almost $1 billion.”

Furthermore, according to the Washington Times, “Until recently, he [Huckabee] had refused to sign the famous no-tax pledge offered to candidates by Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.”

In spite of Huckabee’s proven big-government, big-spending, and pro-amnesty record, however, some Christian conservatives are falling for his conservative rhetoric. It seems that all a Republican candidate has to do is start talking “pro-life” and “pro-marriage” and he or she will gain the support of certain Christian conservatives.

First it was Bob Jones, III endorsing the liberal former governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, and now it is Janet Folger endorsing the liberal former governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee. Why any Christian leader would want to support a man with such a dubious record truly escapes me.

Christians need to beware of Mike Huckabee. He is not a conservative. Even worse, he is not a constitutionalist. He is an opportunist, however. This is demonstrated by the fact that many of his supporters are openly posturing (with Huckabee’s consent, obviously) for an opportunity to run Huckabee as a potential Vice Presidential candidate with either Giuliani or Romney at the top of the ticket.

Let me ask the reader something. How could a principled pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, pro-Constitution conservative be willing to run on a ticket with a liberal presidential candidate such as Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney? That’s right, he couldn’t.

I say again, beware of Mike Huckabee!

P.S. I would like to invite everyone who lives within driving distance of Pensacola, Florida to come hear the former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, Judge Roy Moore, “The Ten Commandments Judge,” this Sunday, November 4, 2007 at Crossroad Baptist Church. The service begins at 10am CST. In my opinion, Judge Roy Moore is one of America’s greatest Christian statesmen. He will be speaking live and in person to the people of Crossroad Baptist Church this Sunday, November 4. The church is located at 6800 Mobile Highway (US Highway 90), 1/2 mile past the Fairgrounds in Northwest Pensacola.

As a point of reference, Pensacola is located in the western-most tip of the State of Florida, about 50 miles East of Mobile, Alabama. Pensacola is approximately a 5 hour drive from Atlanta; a 6 1/2 hour drive from Orlando; a 3 hour drive from New Orleans; and a 7 hour drive from Nashville.

© Chuck Baldwin

Ranking The 2008 Republican Contenders On The Illegal Immigration Issue

By John Hawkins of RightWingNews.com

http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2007/10/ranking_the_2008_republican_co.php?comments=show#comments

It can be very difficult for the average person to sort through where the 2008 Republican contenders stand on illegal immigration. That’s because it’s a complex, nuanced issue (especially when you get into voting records), because it’s very difficult to compare the records of say a mayor, a governor, and a senator, and most importantly, because the issue is handled so dishonestly.

Everyone claims they want to vote to improve border security, but they often don’t vote that way. Everyone claims to oppose amnesty, but it took an unprecedented amount of opposition from the general public to keep the Bush/Kennedy amnesty bill from passing. Additionally, everybody talks tough on illegal immigration, particularly when they’re running for office. If you listen to the members of Congress who are the toughest and the softest on illegal immigration, what you’ll usually find is that they sound almost identical when they’re trying to convince the voters to go their way at election time. Add to that the fact that many of the candidates running for President have shifted their stances on illegal immigration quite a bit over the last couple of years and it makes it impossible to sort out the differences between the candidates without a good understanding of the issue and a lot of research.

So, with that in mind, I have done the research on all of the candidates (minus John Cox and Alan Keyes, who have no legislative records to peruse and no chance of winning), and have presented my findings below.

Keep in mind that I am a staunch foe of illegal immigration, opposed the Kennedy/Bush amnesty bill, and am steadfastly opposed to comprehensive illegal immigration reform, amnesty, or rewarding illegal aliens for breaking our laws. The closer a candidate is to my position on the issue, the higher grade I gave him. Starting with the worst first, here’s the ranking of the candidates,

8 ) Mike Huckabee
Americans for Better Immigration Grade: N/A
Did he support the Bush/Kennedy Comprehensive Immigration Bill?: No.
Former Stance: Amnesty, new guest worker programs, and security improvements at the same time.
Current Stance: Security first, amnesty and new guest worker programs later.

Notable Quotables “Another bill in the draft stages, backed by Gov. Mike Huckabee, would make illegal aliens eligible for state-funded scholarships and in-state tuition if they graduate from high school in Arkansas.” — Laura Kellams, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 1/27/05)

“Companies controlled by overseas corporations could feel they are unwanted in Arkansas if the Legislature approves an immigration measure now before it, Gov. Mike Huckabee says… Last week, Huckabee described it as ‘inflammatory … race-baiting … demagoguery.’ He said the bill, which seeks to forbid public assistance and voting rights to illegal immigrants, ‘inflames those who are racist and bigots and makes them think there’s a real problem. But there’s not.’” — Associated Press, 2/3/05

Short Summary: When you look at his entire record, Huckabee may be the single most illegal immigrant friendly candidate in the entire race, which is saying something given some of the other people running. In 2006, he was strongly supportive of the Bush/Kennedy approach to illegal immigration and even came across as being opposed to building a fence on the southern border. Although Mike Huckabee’s website now says that, “My number one priority is to secure America’s border,” there is very little in his record that suggests he means it.

Can He Be Trusted To Hang Tough On This Issue? His 180 degree shift on this issue appears to be purely motivated by politics, so there are no assurances that he wouldn’t shift again during a general election or when he gets into office.

7) John McCain
Americans for Better Immigration Grade: D
Did he support the Bush/Kennedy Comprehensive Immigration Bill?: Yes
Former Stance: Amnesty, new guest worker programs, and security improvements at the same time.
Current Stance: Security first, amnesty and new guest worker programs later.

Notable Quotables: “Some believe we should round them up and send them back. I don’t know how you do that, and I don’t know why you’d want to … (the undocumented) have grasped the lowest rung of our ladder. They want to rise, and we should let them. Let them come out of the shadows, pay a fine, stay employed, pay taxes, and earn their citizenship. We all will be the better for it.” — John McCain, IrishAbroad, May 4, 2006

“I’ll build the godd*mned fence if they want it.” — John McCain, Vanity Fair, February, 2007 issue.

Short Summary: John McCain was so closely associated with the amnesty bill going through the Senate earlier this year that many people called it the Kennedy/McCain amnesty bill. However, after the bill failed, and the illegal immigration issue did so much damage to his presidential campaign that it turned him, arguably, from the front runner to a 5th place contender, he switched to a security first position.

Can He Be Trusted To Hang Tough On This Issue? His 180 degree shift on this issue appears to be purely motivated by politics, so there are no assurances that he wouldn’t shift again during a general election or when he gets into office. In fact, given that he was one of the biggest advocates of amnesty in the Senate, it’s very difficult to imagine him sticking with his current position long-term.

6) Rudy Giuliani
Americans for Better Immigration Grade: N/A
Did he support the Bush/Kennedy Comprehensive Immigration Bill?: No
Former Stance: Amnesty, new guest worker programs, and security improvements at the same time.
Current Stance: Security first, amnesty and new guest worker programs later.

Notable Quotables: “Mayor Giuliani is wading into the debate over America’s immigration policy with the argument that the comprehensive approach being pursued by the Senate is better for American security than what he called the ‘punitive’ approach being pressed by the House of Representatives…’I think the compromise the Senate was looking at, something along those lines makes sense.’ Mr. Giuliani said.’” — Ira Stoll, New York Sun, 4/27/06

“If you come here and you work hard and you happen to be in an undocumented status, you’re one of the people who we want in this city. You’re somebody that we want to protect.” — Deborah Sontag, New York Times, 6/10/94

Short Summary: New York was a sanctuary city under Giuliani and in late 2006, Rudy was a strong supporter of the Bush/Kennedy approach to illegal immigration. After he ran for President, Giuliani flip-flopped on the issue and started supporting a security first position.

Can He Be Trusted To Hang Tough On This Issue? His 180 degree shift on this issue appears to be purely motivated by politics, so there are no assurances that he wouldn’t shift again during a general election or when he gets into office.

5) Mitt Romney
Americans for Better Immigration Grade: N/A
Did he support the Bush/Kennedy Comprehensive Immigration Bill?: No
Former Stance: Amnesty, new guest worker programs, and security improvements at the same time.
Current Stance: Security first and no amnesty, but new guest worker programs later.

Notable Quotables: “…(O)ne of McCain’s potential rivals for the GOP nomination, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, has made it known that he supports the President’s immigration position, saying that Republicans who have broken rank with Bush ‘made a big mistake.’” — The Associated Press, 9/20/06

“Romney, for example, has criticized Giuliani for allowing New York to be a “sanctuary city” protecting illegal immigrants during his term as mayor. But as governor, Romney apparently did little specifically about the three cities in his own state that were harboring illegals.” — Johnathan Martin, The Politico, August 15, 2007

Short Summary: Mitt was initially a strong supporter of the Bush/Kennedy approach to illegal immigration. After he ran for President, Mitt flip-flopped on the issue and started supporting a security first position, no amnesty position. That being said, he does distinguish himself from McCain, Huckabee, and Rudy by claiming to oppose a path to citizenship for illegals currently in the country.

Can He Be Trusted To Hang Tough On This Issue? His 180 degree shift on this issue appears to be purely motivated by politics, so there are no assurances that he wouldn’t shift again during a general election or when he gets into office.

4) Fred Thompson
Americans for Better Immigration Grade: C
Did he support the Bush/Kennedy Comprehensive Immigration Bill?: No.
Former Stance: His record was mixed during his Senate tenure, but he has been consistently in favor of improving enforcement and border security along with no amnesty or new guest worker bills later since he came back on the political scene in early 2007.
Current Stance: Improve enforcement and border security, no amnesty or new guest worker bills later.

Notable Quotables: “Some votes are likely to draw scrutiny, particularly a series of votes in the 1990s against cracking down on illegal aliens. Those include a 1995 vote against limiting services other than emergency care and public education to illegal aliens — he was one of just six senators to oppose that proposal — and a 1996 vote against creating an employer verification system to help businesses filter out illegal aliens who apply for jobs.

…An adviser to the campaign on immigration matters, who asked not to be named, said Mr. Thompson had concerns about how broadly the public-benefits provision was drawn. As for the employer verification system, the adviser said Mr. Thompson joined a majority of Republicans in the chamber in opposing it, with many of them thinking the new system would lead to a national ID card.” — The Washington Times, September 5, 2007

“I think its time for a little plain talk to the leaders of Mexico. Something like: hey guys, you’re our friends and neighbors and we love you but it’s time you had a little dose of reality. A sovereign nation loses that status if it cannot secure its own borders and we are going to do whatever is necessary to do so, although our policies won’t be as harsh as yours are along your southern border. And criticizing the U.S. for alternately doing too much and too little to stop your illegal activities is not going to set too well with Americans of good will who are trying to figure a way out of the mess that your and our open borders policy has already created.” — Fred Thompson, Paul Harvey Show, March 20, 2007

Short Summary: Thompson had a mixed, but generally positive record on illegal immigration issues when he was in the Senate and in his defense, it wasn’t exactly a hot issue back then. Since he has gotten into the race, Fred has been tougher on illegal immigration than any of his other top tier rivals and he has introduced a very strong, very specific immigration plan.

Can He Be Trusted To Hang Tough On This Issue? Given the specificity of his plans, the toughness of his rhetoric, and his willingness to go further than his top tier rivals, it seems likely that he’d stick to his guns in a general election or if he got into the White House.

3) Ron Paul
Americans for Better Immigration Grade: B
Did he support the Bush/Kennedy Comprehensive Immigration Bill?: No.
Former Stance: Improve enforcement and border security, no amnesty or new guest worker bills later.
Current Stance: Improve enforcement and border security, no amnesty or new guest worker bills later.

Notable Quotables: “Amnesty for illegal immigrants is not the answer. Millions of people who broke the law by entering, staying, and working in our country illegally should not be rewarded with a visa. Why should lawbreakers obtain a free pass, while those seeking to immigrate legally face years of paperwork and long waits for a visa?” — Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, August 9, 2005

“We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked.” — Ron Paul, campaign website

Short Summary: Paul is almost as tough as Hunter and Tancredo on illegal immigration, but he opposes using the military on the border. Still, he has a very good record overall on the issue and would undoubtedly satisfy people who are worried about illegal immigration if he were to become President.

Can He Be Trusted To Hang Tough On This Issue? Yes.

2) Duncan Hunter
Americans for Better Immigration Grade: A+
Did he support the Bush/Kennedy Comprehensive Immigration Bill?: No
Former Stance: Improve enforcement and border security, no amnesty or new guest worker bills later.
Current Stance: Security first, no amnesty or new guest worker bills later.

Notable Quotables: “As president of the United States we will build this entire fence … all 854 miles … in six months. That is my commitment to you.” — Duncan Hunter, The Bulletin, 8/16/2007

“I vow to oppose this legislation supported by Senators Edward Kennedy and John McCain.It provides a vast new immigration benefit to millions of illegal aliens who have broken our laws to live in the United States. I opposed the 1986 amnesty act because of this same reason. It proved to be the draw that we predicted it would be. I am deeply disappointed to see history repeating itself.” — Duncan Hunter, May 18, 2007

Short Summary: My former employer, Duncan Hunter, has a rock solid record on illegal immigration, wrote the secure fence act, and he was the biggest promoter of the existing fence on the San Diego border. The only reason he is ranked behind Tom Tancredo is that Tancredo has been the acknowledged leader of the anti-illegal immigration forces in the House for so long that he deserves to be in the top slot against anyone.

Can He Be Trusted to Hang Tough On This Issue?: Absolutely.

1) Tom Tancredo
Americans for Better Immigration Grade: A+
Did he support the Bush/Kennedy Comprehensive Immigration Bill?: No
Former Stance: Improve enforcement and border security, no amnesty or new guest worker bills later.
Current Stance: Security first, no amnesty or new guest worker bills later.

Notable Quotables: ‘I have a solution,’ he told a Friday night crowd of about 100 at the Quality Inn in downtown Des Moines. ‘It’s a radical one. Scary. Enormously controversial.’ Then he paused and spaced his words for effect. ‘It’s called: Enforce…the…law.’” Tom Tancredo, The Los Angeles Times, July 5, 2007

“I have to tell you that we are facing a situation, where if we don’t control immigration, legal and illegal, we will eventually reach the point where it won’t be what kind of a nation we are, balkanized or united, we will actually have to face the fact that we are no longer a nation at all. That is the honest to God eventual outcome of this kind of massive immigration combined with the cult of multiculturalism that permeates our society. …The fact is, that won’t occur in a legal way, it will occur in a de facto way.” — Tom Tancredo, interview with Right Wing News, July 28, 2003

Short Summary: Tancredo has been leading the charge on the illegal immigration issue for years and has centered his whole presidential campaign around it. For that reason, he deserves the top slot.

Can He Be Trusted To Hang Tough On This Issue? Absolutely.

Schlafly not keen on GOP frontrunners

October 22, 2007

Conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly is expressing strong dissatisfaction with the top-tier Republican presidential candidates. She also questions the validity of the results of the Values Voters straw poll on Saturday.

Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly says most of the GOP candidates who have been designated frontrunners are globalists. According to Schlafly, candidates Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, John McCain, and Mike Huckabee all “need to wake up” and realize they need the votes of Reagan Democrats to win.

“I think that’s a great mistake for the Republicans. I feel that it’s very important that they reach out to people on the jobs issue,” Schlafly shares. “I was quite disappointed with the debate that was broadcast from Michigan, which is an economically depressed state, and they didn’t appear to have any sympathy or compassion for all the millions of people who’ve lost their jobs that have moved to China.”

In the straw poll taken over the weekend in conjunction with the Values Voters Summit, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney topped former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee by a mere 30 votes. Schlafly contends that Huckabee was the winner among conference attendees who heard the weekend’s speeches.

“The straw poll was interesting,” she offers. “People were able to vote on it even though they weren’t here. They could vote for the prior two weeks before the conference took place and before they heard any of the speakers.” And in her opinion, that means one cannot say a whole lot about the validity of the poll.

Schlafly believes all that can be deduced from the poll is that so-called “values voters” are still shopping for their candidate. And she says while social conservatives are divided in many ways, they all agree they cannot support a candidate who is not pro-life. The Eagle Forum founder tells OneNewsNow the only GOP hopefuls she is comfortable with are Congressmen Duncan Hunter of California and Tom Tancredo of Colorado.

All Original Content Copyright 2006-2007 American Family News Network – All Rights Reserved

(Note: Duncan Hunter was the only candidate to stand up to the front runners on trade issues during the recent debates, and he regularly points out the jobs we have lost to China, the trade deficit we have as a result, and the national security issues that ensue as China builds weapons with our trade dollars that are designed to combat our military, particularly our Pacific Navy, and that are also being sold to Iraqi and Afghan insurgents via Iran.   Duncan Hunter has a PERFECT rating from Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum)