The Government is NOT a Charity.

Huckabee seems likable and his personal approach to politics is a strength that other candidates should implement in their own campaigns. His stance on social issues seem also good. However, Huckabee’s record on spending, taxes, and big government is the wrong direction for this country.

Here are some evidences of Huckabee’s spending sprees:

During an interview with Lou Dobb’s on CNN, Ed Rollins, Huckabee’s new endorsement, confessed that Huckabee likes to spend taxpayer’s money. When trying to defend Huckabee’s proclivity to spend money and raise taxes, Collins said that if Reagan were running today even Reagon wouldn’t pass the “puritan’s” litmus test from organizations like the National Review. Collins stated, “There are a lot of things a governor has to do if you are going to be a good governor and make the state function better.” I don’t by it.

Mitt was a phenomenal governor. He reduced taxes, got Massachusetts out of a $3 billion dollar deficit and still managed to (1) get some of the top scores in the nation in regards to the education of his youth, (2) get every resident of his state affordable healthcare, (3) fight for traditional marriage, and (4) enforce immigration law. I guess such should not come as a surprise given the 25 years he spent in the private section revamping failing organizations and saving a scandal ridden Olympics.

In this next video Huckabee and Chuck Norris on Bill O’Reilly’s show. When questioning Huckabee whether he will impose his religious views on the nation he replied, “When we tried to improve education … when we improved health care … when we built better roads … frankly I think is consistent with a person of faith.”

And of course, the Club for Growth put this ad out a few weeks ago that highlights Huckabee’s more Democratic-like fiscal, economic, and tax policies.

Frederic Bastiat once said:

“But sincere or insincere, the intentions of persons are not here under question. In fact, I have already said that legal plunder is based partially on philanthropy, even though it is a false philanthropy.

With this explanation, let us examine the value — the origin and the tendency — of this popular aspiration which claims to accomplish the general welfare by general plunder. . . .

We must remember that law is force, and that, consequently, the proper functions of the law cannot lawfully extend beyond the proper functions of force.

When law and force keep a person within the bounds of justice, they impose nothing but a mere negation. They oblige him only to abstain from harming others. They violate neither his personality, his liberty, nor his property. They safeguard all of these. They are defensive; they defend equally the rights of all. . . .

When a politician views society from the seclusion of his office, he is struck by the spectacle of the inequality that he sees. He deplores the deprivations which are the lot of so many of our brothers, deprivations which appear to be even sadder when contrasted with luxury and wealth. . . .

Perhaps he should consider this proposition: Since all persons seek well-being and perfection, would not a condition of justice be sufficient to cause the greatest efforts toward progress, and the greatest possible equality that is compatible with individual responsibility? Would not this be in accord with the concept of individual responsibility which God has willed in order that mankind may have the choice between vice and virtue, and the resulting punishment and reward?

But the politician never gives this a thought. His mind turns to organizations, combinations, and arrangements — legal or apparently legal. He attempts to remedy the evil by increasing and perpetuating the very thing that caused the evil in the first place: legal plunder. . . .

You say: “There are persons who have no money,” … Nothing can enter the public treasury for the benefit of one citizen or one class unless other citizens and other classes have been forced to send it in. If every person draws from the treasury the amount that he has put in it, it is true that the law then plunders nobody. But this procedure does nothing for the persons who have no money. It does not promote equality of income. The law can be an instrument of equalization only as it takes from some persons and gives to other persons. When the law does this, it is an instrument of plunder.”

Mr. Huckabee, the government is not a charity. It rules only by force. Force is the antithesis of charity. Religion is about charity, not force. It is not charity to force people to pay for things, that is false philanthropy. Perhaps I’m wrong but false philanthropy seems some what inconsistant with religious teachings.

Vote for Mitt. A candidate for less force.

The Iowa Caucus is approaching fast and Mitt needs your help. Please visit www.mittromney.com and contribute to his campaign.

Part 2 – Romney is the ONLY candidate that will fight to protect the FAMILY.

As a follow up to posting entitled “Mitt Romney is the ONLY Top-Tier Candidate that Will Fight to Protect the Family” and to the posting entitled “Look at the Record”, I’m entering this post to illustrate what others, who have personally worked with Mitt Romney, are saying about his sincerity and commitment to defending the family.

The following is a letter sent by various community and religious leaders in Massachusetts:

An Open Letter Regarding Governor Mitt Romney

January 11, 2007

Dear conservative friends:

We hail from a broad spectrum of organizations dedicated to fighting for the pro-family agenda in Massachusetts. As you know, Mitt Romney became the governor of our state in 2003. Since that time, we have worked closely with him and his excellent staff on that agenda.

Some press accounts and bloggers have described Governor Romney in terms we neither have observed nor can we accept. To the contrary, we, who have been fighting here for the values you also hold, are indebted to him and his responsive staff in demonstrating solid social conservative credentials by undertaking the following actions here in Massachusetts:

• Staunchly defended traditional marriage. Governor Romney immediately and strongly condemned the 2003 court decision that legalized “same-sex marriage” in our state. More importantly, he followed up on that denunciation with action – action that saved our nation from a constitutional crisis over the definition of marriage. He and his staff identified and enforced a little-known 1913 law that allowed them to order local clerks not to issue marriage licenses to out-of-state couples. Absent this action, homosexual couples would surely have flooded into Massachusetts from other states to get “married” and then demanded that their home states recognize the “marriages,” putting the nation only one court decision away from nationalizing “same-sex marriage.”

• Worked hard to overturn “same-sex marriage” in the Commonwealth with considerable progress to date. In 2004 he lobbied hard, before a very hostile legislature, for a constitutional amendment protecting marriage – an amendment later changed by the legislature to include civil unions, which the Governor and many marriage amendment supporters opposed. Working with the Governor, we were successful in defeating this amendment.

• Provided active support for a successful citizen petition drive in 2005 to advance a clean constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

• Rallied thousands of citizens to focus public and media attention on the failure of legislators, through repeated delays, to perform their constitutional obligation and vote on the marriage amendment.

• Filed suit before the Supreme Judicial Court. The Governor’s suit asked the court to clarify the legislators’ duty to vote and failing that, to place the amendment on the 2008 ballot. That lawsuit, perhaps more than any other single action, was by all accounts instrumental in bringing pressure on the legislators to vote. The vote ultimately was taken on January 2, 2007 and won legislative support – clearing a major hurdle in the three year effort to restore traditional marriage in the Commonwealth.

• Fought for abstinence education. In 2006, under Governor Romney’s leadership, Massachusetts’ public schools began to offer a classroom program on abstinence from the faith-based Boston group Healthy Futures to middle school students. Promoting the program, Governor Romney stated, “I’ve never had anyone complain to me that their kids are not learning enough about sex in school. However, a number of people have asked me why it is that we do not speak more about abstinence as a safe and preventative health practice.”

• Affirmed the culture of life. Governor Romney has vetoed bills to provide access to the so called “morning-after pill,” which is an abortifacient, as well as a bill providing for expansive, embryo-destroying stem cell research. He vetoed the latter bill in 2005 because he could not “in good conscience allow this bill to become law.”

• Stood for religious freedom. Last year, Governor Romney was stalwart in defense of the right of Catholic Charities of Boston to refuse to allow homosexual couples to adopt children in its care. Catholic Charities was loudly accused of “discrimination,” but Governor Romney correctly pointed out that it is unjust to force a religious agency to violate the tenets of its faith in order to placate a special-interest group.

• Filed “An Act Protecting Religious Freedom” in the Massachusetts legislature to save Catholic Charities of Boston and other religious groups from being forced to violate their moral principles or stop doing important charitable work.

All of this may explain why John J. Miller, the national political reporter of National Review, has written that “a good case can be made that Romney has fought harder for social conservatives than any other governor in America, and it is difficult to imagine his doing so in a more daunting political environment.”

We are aware of the 1994 comments of Senate candidate Romney, which have been the subject of much recent discussion. While they are, taken by themselves, obviously worrisome to social conservatives including ourselves, they do not dovetail with the actions of Governor Romney from 2003 until now – and those actions have positively and demonstrably impacted the social climate of Massachusetts.

Since well before 2003, we have been laboring in the trenches of Massachusetts, fighting for the family values you and we share. It is difficult work indeed – not for the faint of heart. In this challenging environment, Governor Romney has proven that he shares our values, as well as our determination to protect them.

For four years, Governor Romney has been right there beside us, providing leadership on key issues – whether it was politically expedient to do so or not. He has stood on principle, and we have benefited greatly from having him with us.

It is clear that Governor Romney has learned much since 1994 – to the benefit of our movement and our Commonwealth. In fact, the entire nation has benefited from his socially conservative, pro-family actions in office. As we explained earlier, his leadership on the marriage issue helped prevent our nation from being plunged into even worse legal turmoil following the court decision that forced “gay marriage” upon our Commonwealth.

For that our country ought to be thankful. We certainly are.

Sincerely,

Rita Covelle
President, Morality in Media Massachusetts

Richard Guerriero
Immediate Past State Deputy, Massachusetts State Council, Knights of Columbus

Mary Ann Glendon
Learned Hand Professor of Law, Harvard Law School

Kristian Mineau
President, Massachusetts Family Institute

Dr. Roberto Miranda
President, COPAHNI Fellowship of Hispanic Pastors of New England

James Morgan
President, Institute for Family Development

Joseph Reilly
President, Massachusetts Citizens for Life

Thomas A. Shields
Chairman, Coalition for Family and Marriage

To contribute to Mitt’s campaign or to learn more about his stance on important issues, please visit www.mittromney.com.

Romney Talks About the Proper Role of Judges

According to our friends at www.californiansforromney.com, Red State has quoted Romney as saying “I think the justices that President Bush has appointed are exactly spot-on. I think Justice Roberts and Justice Alito are exactly the kind of justices America needs. They’re people who believe that the Constitution is what they’re to follow, not what they’re to depart from; people who do not believe that legislation from the bench is the responsibility or authority of being on the bench.”

To contribute to Mitt’s campaign or to learn more about his stance on important issues, please visit www.mittromney.com.