Mike Huckabee v. Homosexuality & the Associated Press, et al.: An Article You Won't Find in the MSM

I ran into the most recent Mike Huckabee story in the mainstream news (MSM). He gave an interview to The College of New Jersey (Ewing, NJ) student newsmagazine The Perspective. The full title of the article is, "Huckabee Rips Steele, Romney, LGBT Activists" {by M. C. Tracey (Editor-in-Chief). The Perspective. April 9, 2010}. The teaser is, "Calls Romney's Healthcare Plan 'Dismal Failure,' Compares Same-Sex Marriage to Incest." The WordPress chosen categories for the article on "The Perspective's site are: "HEALTHCARE, LGBT, POLITICS, RELIGION, REPUBLICANS."

The MSM picked up the story before Huckabee responded. It made national news substituting the term "compares" primarily with "likens" since that's the term The Associated Press applied and The Associated Press is picked up by so many publications around the world (too much voice/say/influence/censorship). The last time Huckabee made national news on the subject, the term was "equates." I wrote about that explaining how "equates" was at best a poor choice. Even the term "likens" is misleading. The point really is more so "analogous." Totally dissimilar things can be used for the purpose of drawing an analogy. In that context, comparisons are appropriate. However, the vast majority of journalists aren't bothered with the distinction. They have an agenda which to put into Mike Huckabee's mouth things that very well might not be what he believes at all. Mike Huckabee, I dare say, without knowing him that well (without having followed all the back and forth about him or having heard his in-depth analysis of his own views), knows that sins or errors are by weight (as I used the term above for subjects or topic or issues). He is not saying that one homosexual act is necessarily the same as a life of bestiality with a herd of sheep or what have you. I mention that because Huckabee is quoted by The Associated Press in "Huckabee likens gay marriage to incest, polygamy," by Natasha Metzler, April 13, 2010, (not in The Perspective), as having said the following:

Marriage has historically never meant anything other than a man and a woman. It has never meant two men, two women, a man and his pet, or a man and a whole herd of pets.

It's telling that Metzler goes back to 1992 to quote Huckabee on AIDS, as if AIDS was well understood at the time and as if Metzler knew back then exactly how the epidemic would be controlled. How many homosexuals died? How fast was it spreading? It's easy to forget 1992 eighteen years later. I'm not saying that Huckabee was right back then even for that time. I didn't hold his view at that time. It is clear though that there are homosexuals who actually deliberately spread the disease for various and very strange psychologically disturbed reasons. There was and remains a whole counterculture surrounding that aspect that has been rather hushed up, in fact, not to overstate it now though.

The student journalists taped the interview and published verbatim certain of Mike Huckabee's statements. In Mike's eyes, the article focused on apparently too much on certain subjects to the exclusion of other important issues and statements he believes he made. The two areas, among others, where Mike figures the college newspaper article over did it concern homosexual "marriage" and Michael Steele. Undoubtedly, Mike takes issue with the hyperbolic terms "rips," "slams," "blasted," and other such like. Those are sensationalizing terms in the worst sense.

(Be forewarned that the author of the next linked article throws out the obligatory/hip, Tourette's syndrome, F-bomb not once but twice, as if that's convincing.) In "Huckabee Libels a Young Student Journalist, Who Beats Him," Barrett Brown (The Great Pundit Hunt - True/Slant), says Huckabee was caught because the tape demonstrates that the students didn't misquote him. Was that Huckabee's point? I should think his point in asking The Perspective to release the tape was not to show that they had misquoted him but that they had 1) failed to give weight to the other weighty, perhaps weightier, issues and 2) that they had, as Mike sees it, sensationalized his comments. Mike is correct that his views on homosexuality and "same-sex marriage" are well known, so why put out a headline as if it's practically a scoop? He certainly has valid points there; however, perhaps his expectations were too high concerning a college student's effort. He probably had the journalism professors in mind who may or may not have much to say about what's published in The Perspective.

Barrett Brown really drags up the Old Testament against the professing Christian, Mike Huckabee. Brown didn't take Jesus into consideration. Jesus is the New Testament, and Jesus made clear that Mosaic Law was given to the people because their hearts were too hard for better and best. Of course, Jesus didn't, and doesn't, want polygamy. Jesus did not come to relax standards but to enhance them, removing hypocrisy. He did for those paying attention. There's no coercion against those on the outside of his Church. He didn't say to do anything you want that he didn't list off. He said don't harm each other. He didn't say do the lesser of evils in the aggregate. He said be perfect. Surely homosexuality is far from perfect and that those who argue in favor of it are at best rationalizing. You even will hear M. C. Tracey say that we don't live in an "ideal" society, suggested as reason not to stand against homosexual marriage or state-sanctioned unions.

Barrett Brown states, "...women generally had no choice in marriage under Christian rule until such time as the secularist Enlightenment came about to provide cover for this to be changed...." There was no Christian rule. When did leadership follow Jesus in history? Show us one, Barrett. The best that can be said of all such leadership to which Brown alludes is that it was partially following conveniently selected aspects of the Gospel (often/usually grossly misinterpreted).

Brown goes on to say the following:

It's always worth remembering that his precious evangelical theology, which he points to as absolutely necessary for the instilling of proper values as well as maintaining our very civilization, is not so effective as to have prevented Huckabee's disgusting son from brutalizing and hanging a stray dog during an outing with the Boy Scouts.

This is to suggest that Mike Huckabee's general thrust is demolished, as if his son might not have done worse absent any guidance from his fleshly father. What possessed Mike's son to do such a thing? Was it Christian upbringing or the inroads of sadism from the outside? I should think the answer might be clear that the abuser was abused and not necessarily in his fleshly father's house.

By the way, Barrett's attempt to treat us to pointing out Mike's grammatical errors ("Not only didn't he" rather than "Not only did he"). It's interesting that someone ducked back into Barrett's article to change "viscous crime" to "vicious crime." Should we apply the F-bomb twice, once for staying "viscous crime" in the first place and once for being a hypocrite toward Mike Huckabee about it? Perhaps we should apply it a third time for hiding the fact that someone made the fix so stealthily (that is while maintaining the F-bombs toward the supposedly F-ing idiot, etc., Mike).

While were at it, let's look at, "He seems like the sort of person would be so ridiculously confined in his overall intellectual wanderings that he would not have come across any reasoning of the such...." Is there an oops there or two? Yes, there are errors [F, F]. Everyone makes them. I'm not going to redline Barrett Browns piece here. I've made the point.

I read questionable things in Huckabee's statements, but they are subtle more so than hyper. For instance, concerning the U.S. military's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy where homosexuals are not to tell anyone in the military or publicly that they are homosexuals, Huckabee is quoted by Tracey as saying:

"I wouldn't support a repeal if I were commander-in-chief" and "You don't see foot soldiers out there demanding it. I'm not sure that's the most important thing we ought to be doing for the military" and "['Don't Ask Don't Tell'] touches an extraordinarily small group of people" and [He dismissed calls to amend the policy as] "primarily a posturing point for political purposes" [to] "force something on the military that they themselves haven't pushed that hard."

He would have been better off qualifying about foot soldiers not demanding it because some are, and he should know that if he doesn't already (but he knows it). His point should be that the vast majority of military-service personnel are not clamoring for it and quite possibly as many as want it could be outnumbered by those who don't want it with just as much emotionalism. That part of the issue has not been covered with anywhere near the emphasis of the news media that is largely in sync with the homosexual agenda, as it has been rightly termed. In other words, the lack of coverage concerning those who don't want openly homosexuals serving is manipulative of the masses. That said, it is true that the military has said that if and when openly homosexuals do begin to serve as such, separate living arrangements will be made. Barracks life/set-up will have to change to accommodate anti-homosexuality service personnel. How long that would last remains to be seen. Also, phrasing it as "the military...themselves haven't pushed that hard" is also failing to appreciate that only certain "leadership" positions have stated openly that they favor dropping the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy. The military or Pentagon is far more than a few strategically placed and politically beholden appointees and top brass. The truth of the matter is that the military could have an internal referendum on the subject or at least a formal poll. It would be unusual but in keeping with the mundane democratic nature of the nation. It isn't as if it's a matter of "following orders" (legal orders) at this point. The general voting population should know, which should be obvious from the stir the Huckabee interview has created.

On "same-sex marriage" and "civil unions," M. C. Tracey quotes Huckabee as follows:

You don't go ahead and accommodate every behavioral pattern that is against the ideal. That would be like saying, well, there are a lot of people who like to use drugs, so let's go ahead and accommodate those who want to use drugs. There are some people who believe in incest, so we should accommodate them. There are people who believe in polygamy, so we should accommodate them.

Tracey wrote that, that "draw[s] parallels between homosexuality and other lifestyles that are considered by some to be morally aberrant." There we have the term "parallels" meaning exactly what in Tracey's mind and designed to accomplish what vis-a-vis Mike Huckabee? I should think the term "analogy" was readily available the connotation of which within the overall context of the interview and article would have served much better, at least concerning those who are interested in the distinctions and psychological impact. I'm not writing this so much to chastise M. C. Tracey as to rebuke the MSM that for sure knows better and to set the future straight and strait.

Now, Tracey is aware that Mike Huckabee stands opposed to "accommodating every behavioral pattern that is against the ideal." He knows that Huckabee wants society to steer away from illicit drug use, incest, polygamy, and other less than ideal behaviors. Of course, given that position, he doesn't want children placed with homosexual foster parents or to be adopted by homosexuals. Those are his positions, and he has his considered reasons. Concerning placing children with homosexuals, Huckabee said:

I think this is not about trying to create statements for people who want to change the basic fundamental definitions of family, and always we should act in the best interest of the children, not in the seeming interest of the adults. Children are not puppies. This is not a time to see if we can experiment and find out, how does this work?

His point is relatively valid, but society doesn't need to experiment to find out whether or not it's a good work or not. It is not a good work. His point about accommodating adults' sexual predilections is correct. The debate on homosexuality is far from over in the mainstream, contrary to statements by many homosexuals and pro-homosexuals. It's not a done-deal that homosexuals will just continue getting their way. In fact, it's certain that there will be a backlash once the younger generation grows up some more and sees that too much license leads to disintegration and chaos. I'm raising the issues because I'm advocating for self-discipline, just as Jesus did.

Here's Mike Huckabee's statement concerning the article in The Perspective, as posted on Huck PAC - Blogs April 12, 2010:

The young college student hopefully will find a career other than journalism. I would ask that he release the unedited tape of our conversation. I believe that what people do as individuals in their private lives is their business, but I do not believe we should change the traditional definition of marriage. Not only did he attempt to sensationalize my well known and hardly unusual views of same-sex marriage, he also inaccurately reported my views on Michael Steele as GOP chairman - I offered my support and didn't "Rip into Steele" as his article asserted. I had a candid and frank conversation with the group about health care, education, the economy and national security while the young journalism student, instead, chose to focus on the issue of same-sex marriage and grossly distort my views.

Frankly, Mike Huckabee's statement there is much closer to the truth (true characterization) than is the article by M. C. Tracey, who had the following to say about the matter:

RESPONSE TO HUCKABEE STATEMENT
In LGBT, POLITICS, REPUBLICANS on April 13, 2010 at 8:30 am

It is unfortunate that in the wake of his interview with The Perspective, Gov. Mike Huckabee has resorted to ad hominem attacks intended to cast doubt upon our credibility as a publication. This sort of desperate tactic is not surprising, however; politicians in damage-control mode often stoop to attacking the media so they might avoid being accountable for the substance of their remarks.

It is telling that nowhere in his statement did Huckabee suggest he was misquoted in the article, and rightfully so; we have the audio and transcripts to prove that everything reported is accurate.

Huckabee's problem seems to lie more in the focus of the article, which is centered partially [mostly by far] on LGBT issues. We feel that same-sex marriage, laws prohibiting gays and lesbians from adopting children, and 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' are legitimate policy concerns about which to question national political figures. Gov. Huckabee may disagree. [He doesn't.]

But regardless, his words speak for themselves, and it is a shame that he is now so quickly embarrassed of them. [He is not embarrassed at all. He even said so right in the interview.]

Further, Huckabee's claim that he defended RNC Chairman Michael Steele is simply not true.

Have a listen. (Things are a bit out of order - in the interest of getting this out there, we had to improvise.)

If you can tell what was "grossly distorted," please let us know. [I am doing that right here.]

M. C. Tracey
Editor-in-Chief


Original Video - More videos at TinyPic
[http://tinypic.com/player.php?v=6scg07&s=5]

There is no doubt there that the most important, newsworthy topic in M. C. Tracey's mind is homosexuality. Did they discuss the economy? Did they discuss the wars? If they did, then Mike Huckabee's general point is self-evidently correct. Huckabee said that the unedited tape will show that they also discussed "education, the economy and national security." Where's the unedited tape?

Tracey specifically asks Huckabee if he is "equating" homosexuality to incest and polygamy. Mike says no and that it is M. C. who is saying (in the form of a question) that Mike is saying that. Also, the tape sounds edited to me, but perhaps the recorder or mic was being moved around. At this point, more than half the recording has gone by. So, more than one half of the interview has been on same-sex this, that, or the other and it was the lead-in. Let me also point out that Tracey's interviewing style of interrupting and talking over the interviewee is not conducive to good journalism. Now, after asking about Steele, Tracey is back at homosexuality again. Then he moved to healthcare. That's it, unless other topics were cut out. In this case, unless portions are missing, both sides have mischaracterized. However, I'm more than tending to believe that Tracey has edited for effect what is on the full tape when he knew full well that Mike Huckabee called for an airing of the full interview to let the people be the judge rather then getting everything through M. C. Tracey's pro-homosexuality lens.

Tracey calls Huckabee's statement about Tracey's article "ad hominem attacks." Using that expression is designed to implant the idea that it wasn't fair of Mike Huckabee to take exception as he has. It appears though that Mike believes that M. C. Tracey is incapable of learning from the experience after having sufficient time to reflect and to grow. Perhaps M. C. Tracey won't learn and grow. Should Mike Huckabee have taken the approach he did? It's not how I would have handled it. The way the homosexuals at The Associated Press and elsewhere jumped on it and mischaracterized Huckabee without checking with him exacerbated the situation. Mike hasn't taken on the AP over it, has he? Should he? I just did.

It's interesting that M. C. Tracey (I'm assuming he's the one who asked all the questions) brought up reparative therapy. People with what has been termed "unwanted same-sex attraction" certainly should not be prevented from seeking assistance with that, and there are religious counselors and professional psychologists who have supplied such services to people who have reduced, and in some cases attest to having been rid of, same-sex attraction. As most know who have followed this much at all, there has been a huge push by most, if not nearly all, homosexual activists to deny that anyone who has ever been attracted sexually to anyone of the same sex can ever change from that attraction. That is patently false, yet the mainstream media has continually supported those homosexual activists and avoided confronting them about people who testify that they have changed.

Lastly, in the interest of full disclosure, is M. C. Tracey or Natasha Metzler or Barrett Brown either homosexual or bi-sexual or other than heterosexual? I am strictly heterosexual. I suspect Mike Huckabee is also, although he can speak for himself.

This is not an endorsement of Mike Huckabee to lead the nation. I'm not endorsing anyone save everyone having the New Commandment properly understood being written on his or her heart. I don't find the MSM bothering with that though. It's not their agenda.

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.