Republican Party @ MindSay

The Alaska Independence Party
By Steve Benen

Sep 2, 2008
(Political Animal) THE ALASKA INDEPENDENCE PARTY.... What may prove to be the single most damaging angle to Sarah Palin's role on the Republican Party ticket? There are quite a few contenders (ethics scandal, earmarks, inexperience, outside-the-mainstream views), but following up on Hilzoy's item from last night, Palin's association with the Alaska Independence Party might be the most politically detrimental.

It's practically impossible to make a "Country First" argument when your running mate is affiliated with a political party that puts country second.

Officials of the Alaskan Independence Party say that Palin was once so independent, she was once a member of their party, which since the 1970s has been pushing for a legal vote for Alaskans to decide whether or not residents of the 49th state can secede from the United States.And while McCain's motto -- as seen in a new TV ad -- is "Country First," the AIP's motto is the exact opposite -- "Alaska First -- Alaska Always."

Lynette Clark, the chairman of the AIP, tells ABC News that Palin and her husband Todd were members in 1994, even attending the 1994 statewide convention in Wasilla. Clark was AIP secretary at the time.

"We are a state's rights party," Clark -- a self-employed goldminer -- tells ABC News. The AIP has "a plank that challenges the legality of the Alaskan statehood vote as illegal and in violation of United Nations charter and international law."

For all the talk about Barack and Michelle Obama's patriotism, John McCain's running mate was a member of a political party that liked the idea of seceding from the United States altogether. It's the kind of idea that would have been more common in the 1850s.

Advocating secession is, practically by definition, un-American.
How does the right go after Obama's patriotism while supporting a ticket with a candidate who joined a secessionist party?

We are, after all, talking about a party founded by a man who said, "I'm an Alaskan, not an American.
I've got no use for America or her damned institutions.
" The same man, AIP founder Joe Vogler, also said, "[T]he fires of Hell are glaciers compared to my hate for the American government."

How is this any better than Jeremiah Wright? Why would Sarah Palin voluntarily join this man's political party?

Complicating matters, Marc Ambinder has a video of a AIP leader explaining that party members "must 'infiltrate' -- his words -- the other two parties and push for the cause of Alaskan independence."

I suspect McCain and his aides didn't know about any of this. Indeed, they couldn't have -- they didn't vet her.
But now that this revelation has come to light, what's the defense?

 

Look today is Super Tuesday. Since Fred Thompson dropped out because of a lack of support from those who should have supported the only true Conservative in the Republican race, I have been in a disappointing funk as to who I should support.

 

Frankly all the remaining candidates have just as many knocks as plusses and I truly do not know who the best is.

 

Although McCain has a history of teaming up with Leftists, he does have a decent Senatorial voting record on Conservative causes. The many pundits that are hysterical about McCain being the front runner as of this date are way overboard on the venom if you look at McCain in balance. Some pro-McCain Republicans have called this McCain Derangement Syndrome.

 

Romney has a solid record as an administrative person in the private sector and in government as the Governor of Massachusetts. However as a politician he has had to comply with a mostly liberal voter constituency in the State of Massachusetts thus he has made some politically social stands that are abhorrent to the social Conservative; viz. on abortion and homosexual rights. Being a politician and seeking to gratify a larger constituency – viz. the entire USA. This has given him the appearance of a flip flopper as Romney has recanted on some of his gubernatorial stands. The issue for me about Romney though is his religious faith. Yeah I know, to the secularist it sounds bigoted; however I am a Bible believing Christian that has always viewed Mormon theology as not even close to Christian basic theology that even Catholics, Protestants and Eastern Orthodox Christians agree on. Saying all that, if Romney was to pull out the Republican nomination, I would vote for him. Any Republican is way better that than the obviously Socially Left moral relativists who continue a Secular Humanist transformation of American society.

 

Then there is Mike Huckabee. At this stage Huckabee probably does not have enough money to make his case to the American people. Ironically Conservatives criticize Huckabee for being fiscally Leftist and acknowledge his Social Conservatism. Just today I ran into a website that is critical of Huckabee’s potential connection to “Reconstructionist Christianity.” The Reconstructionists (aka Dominionists) believe the Law of the land in America should be closer to that of Old Testament laws (bad news since Christ redeemed Believers from the curse of the Law in the Old Testament) than the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution. That is the knock; however from actual readings of Rushdoony’s (father of Reconstructionism) writings, he appears to be more of an advocate of inserting Christian principles into the Constitution rather than abolishing the Constitution of or the Bill of Rights. One other Huckabee gaffe was a December 30, 2007 interview with Leftist Tim Russert in which Huckabee is caught saying homosexuality is a matter of personal choice. Of course anti-Huckabee people wanted to make the Christian Right aware that Huckabee might not be as Socially Conservative as he proclaims.

 

I call it a gaffe because what the anti-Huckabee people fail to point out is Huckabee’s explanation of his “homosexual statement.”

 

Although Huckabee asked Russert to understand that "when a Christian speaks of sin, a Christian says all of us are sinners," he asserted that "the perfection of God is seen in a marriage in which one man, one woman live together as a couple committed to each other as life partners."

 

 So here’s the thing. I am voting Republican in 2008 for whoever wins the nomination. For me there is no clear cut choice. However if I was pinned down on who to vote for today, I would lean toward Christian Social Conservatism and that would be Mike Huckabee.

 

Here is a good clip for a Christian to vote for Huckabee:

 

I owe a hat tip for the information to Jim Phelan.

Dr. Rusty Shackleford writing for The Jawa Report was a fellow Fredhead as was I. Shackleford gets directly into his issue: If you were a Fredhead you should support Mitt Romney for he is the closest thing to a Conservative still running for the Republican nomination.

 

Shackleford heaps a tremendous amount of disdain upon Huckabee. I too am not certain Huckabee is the man. If he won the nomination the voters may perceive him as the Christian Right’s man God wants in Office. This is an extreme view for a lot of voters. Although I am not one of them, even Republicans might view Huckabee’s Ministerial credentials as a violation of the constitutionally non-existent concept of the “Separation of Church and State.”

 

Because of this voters may be swayed by whoever fringe Left Candidate the Democrats finally settle on. When it comes to a choice of radicalism, Americans tend to err on the side of the secular rather than the Christian these days.

 

Shackleford directly says voters that are put off by Romney’s Mormonism are clearly fringe social issue Christians who are not concerned about the Right Stuff that makes a total Conservative. Thus not voting for Romney because of Mormonism is bigotry. After all the new package Romney claims to have transformed his liberal Massachusetts social liberalism back to a Mormon friendly social Conservatism as well as being a fiscal Conservative who gets it about the War on Terror.

 

The truth is social Conservatism is not in Romney’s track record in Massachusetts. That bothers me!

 

And as far as bigotry, that is a way out there accusation. It is like the Left accusing Christians of bigotry for preaching or believing the Word of God which is definitely anti-homosexual and warns of cults using the name of Christ but teaching a different Gospel. Also the Left accuses Christians of bigotry toward Muslims when Christians defend their faith against Islamic belief, yet when Muslims call Christians and Jews as either sub-class citizens as being the “People of the Book” or outright call for a Christian’s and Jew’s death for their existence insults their Allah.

 

Shackleford is using Left Wing thinking to get Fredheads to support Romney.

 

In the Primary selection process of the Republican Nominee I am not voting for Romney because he is a Mormon and that is not bigoted, it is in line with my Christian faith.

 

There is a lot about Mormonism that the every day Mormon does not even know about. Mormonism is an elitist driven cult that requires promotion to know certain secrets somewhat like Gnosticism – Christianity’s early competitor in the first couple hundred years after the Resurrection of Christ.

 

And just so you don’t think I am spouting Conspiracy Theory, there are huge numbers of former Mormons that have come back to Christ that are involved in Christian Ministries that are dedicated to expose the differences between Mormonism and Christianity. Christians should not support Mormons for Public Office because of those differences.

 

Having said all that, I am extremely uncertain who I will support for the Republican nomination. There are simply too many intangible qualities of likes and dislikes of the remaining Republican Candidates.

 

So as a Fredhead I am not throwing my lot to Romney; however I am not necessarily throwing my lot to any other Candidate either.

 

This may surprise you after my dissing of Mormonism. I will throw my lot to whoever wins the Republican nomination; even if that person is Mitt Romney.

 

The reality of it all is this: the Democrats support godless socially liberal stances that would force me to vote for a self-proclaimed socially Conservative Romney. The other Republicans: McCain, Giuliani and Huckabee have a bit of the RINO liberalism in them but at least they are not fringe Leftists and they each have an aspect that I do like about them.

 

[NOTE: There is something way fishy about Ron Paul. It is no accident I did not include him Republicans that have aspects that I like.]

 

Whoever wins the nomination, I pray that Candidate entices Fred Thompson to be their Vice President. That would be an awesome team against the fringe Left Democrats.

 

The real point of it all is this: VOTE REPUBLICAN.

 

JRH

 

Rasmussen has published the numbers within the GOP about which candidate is viewed as the most conservative to date.

 

My Thompson has lost ground and is at a 40% perception as a Conservative. You Thompson supporters had better start reading and sharing why Thompson would make a good President. Have an answer for a couple of black marks:

 

1.      Thompson supported McCain/Feingold, which was a bi-partisan attempt at campaign reform. Unfortunately the reform favored Leftists more than the Slanted Right because the Right dominates grass roots campaigning via Blogs and Talk Radio. The Left controls the Mainstream Media. McCain/Feingold was not good legislation and might even be unconstitutional.

 

2.      When Thompson revamped his staff in preparation for bigger scale Administration and planning for his campaign, he had image problems. At first he hired Spencer Abraham as the Campaign Manager. Oops Abraham is known as Jihad Spence among the Slanted Right anti-Jihadist pundits in America for his support of Arabs in his lobbying days. Thompson moved quickly to diffuse the backlash and Abraham was demoted to third on his Campaign leadership with Bill Lacy becoming the new Campaign Manager.

 

3.      Another campaign “oops” was having friend Phil Martin involved in the campaign. Martin is a guy that has changed his life around and has become a respected businessman; however Martin has a past with drugs and a felony conviction. Once the good ole’ Mainstream Media pointed out that Thompson’s friend was a felon; Martin resigned to prevent mudslinging toward Thompson.

 

Amazingly Mitt Romney has a 46% rating as a perceived Conservative. Certainly Romney is a Conservative; however from a Christian Right perspective Romney’s faith as a Mormon comes into play. Most on the Christian Right view Mormonism as a cult based on Christianity yet not part of Christianity as say Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox are viewed as Christians.

 

Mormonism itself has all the moral values of Christianity (except the rogue spin-off Mormons that push polygamy); however the theology is definitely different placing more emphasis on the Book of Mormon rather than the Bible as the Word of God.

 

Romney as a former Governor of Massachusetts has social Conservative issues that he supported in the past but has changed his line in the present to boost a potential attraction to the Christian Right. The attraction seems to be scoring points for some on the Christian Right are beginning to endorse Romney, most significantly Weyrich and Jones.

 

Robertson is endorsing Giuliani to win the GOP nomination. Robertson’s endorsement could split the cohesion of the Christian Right because Giuliani is openly pro-abortion, pro-homosexual rights and made New York City a sanctuary city for illegal aliens. Zero of those aspects are amenable to the Christian Right. In fact there are those on the Christian Right which feel vehemently that Robertson and Weyrich are playing the role of Judas in the Republican Candidate selection.

 

My man Thompson is receiving a Christian Right organization’s endorsement allegedly in the very near future. Unnamed Republican sources are claiming the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) will announce their endorsement for Thompson tomorrow. We will see if that pans out. If indeed that happens that will be nearly as huge an endorsement for a Candidate as Robertson’s endorsement for Giuliani.

 

The GOP selection process is splintering the group that is responsible for electing President Bush to two terms of Office. My wonder is this: can the Christian Right re-unite when the GOP candidate is crowned as the Republican nominee for the Office of President of the United States? A disunited Christian Right could give a PR election advantage to the evil moral relativism of the Democratic Party which definitely stands for everything the Christian Right despises.

 

 

 

 

            I am a born again Christian, I’m pro-life, and I support Rudy Giuliani for President of the United States.  The former New York City mayor is my preferred Republican candidate, and the refusal of so many in the evangelical community to even consider him based solely on his pro-choice views saddens me.  They’ll probably even kick me out of the group after reading this.

            Like it or not, in 1973, seven unelected justices on the U.S. Supreme Court stripped the right of millions of Americans to regulate abortion through their elected legislators at the state level.  It is now the law of the land, and short of an amendment to the Constitution, there is little the President or Congress can do about it.  Sure, the President can appoint new justices to the Supreme Court, but these are lifetime appointments, and someone has to die or resign first...and it seems that just can’t happen fast enough for the religious right.

            The mayor’s promises not to make abortion a litmus test for new justices and to appoint “conservative strict constructionist” judges aren’t what most evangelicals want to hear.  Never mind that our soldiers are dying in Iraq, that there are still Islamic nutcases who want to blow us off the map, that we’re being held hostage by OPEC and raped every time we fill our cars up with gas, or that we’re being invaded by illegals from south of the border; their only concern, unfortunately, is that a presidential candidate commits to appointing justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade.

            With that in mind, let’s look at some facts.  Before 1973, when the Court cleared the way for abortion as a form of contraception, the procedure was already legal in all fifty states.  Thirty states permitted abortion only to save the life of the mother.  Sixteen states, including North Carolina, allowed abortions to save the life of the mother and in cases involving rape or incest.   Four states allowed for some form of abortion on demand.  Restricted in most states, yes, but legal all the same.  Where was the pro-life outcry back then?

            If, someday, the Supreme Court should overturn Roe v. Wade—and I don’t believe it will—it won’t be the end of the world and the return to back-alley abortions that pro-choice radicals like Ted Kennedy would have us believe; neither will it be the final nail in abortion’s coffin that most pro-lifers believe it will be...as I once did.  Abortion will still be legal, and overturning Roe will simply mean that we the people have our right back to set the policy in our respective states.

            While I am pro-life, I am also a realist, and I believe that abortion is a necessary evil in some circumstances.  I was once pro-life to the point of making Jesse Helms look liberal, and then someone asked me a simple question: If your wife was raped and became pregnant with that man’s child, do you think she should have to carry that child to term?  I cannot honestly say that I think she should, and I don’t believe that many evangelicals could honestly say that either.

            Since then, my position has been that of our state’s pre-Roe.  I believe abortion is acceptable in cases of rape or incest, and if necessary to save the life of the mother.  If it came down to losing my wife or our unborn child, I’d obviously want the doctors to do everything in their power to save my wife.  A fellow Christian once asked me did I not believe God could intervene and save them both.  Of course I believe He could, and I’d pray that He would...but maybe that person has more faith than I do.  I wouldn’t be willing to take the chance.  We could always try to have more children, but I could never replace my wife.  That may sound harsh to some, but I do not feel that my position on abortion conflicts with my Christian faith in any way.  I have a clear conscience.

            I most certainly respect that my opinion isn’t going to be everyone else’s, nor do I expect it to be, but I have little respect for single issue voters, be they pro-life or pro-gun (which I am also).  According to nearly every national poll, Rudy Giuliani is the only Republican with a snowball’s chance of defeating Hillary Clinton in the general election.  It is just the height of ignorance for evangelicals to write Rudy Giuliani off for being pro-choice in favor of electing a pro-choice militant like Hillary Clinton, who many of these same folks view as Satan incarnate.  It just doesn’t make any sense.

 

© 2007 by J.D. Lewis