Huckabee Leads By Example, Signs His Own Wide-Ranging ‘Pledge To The People’

GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee vowed to sign only one pledge this election season – and it just so happened to be the one he drafted. The former Arkansas governor recently began promoting what he has dubbed a ‘Pledge to the People,’ which includes a litany of positions – both social and fiscal – for which he is committed to fighting as he vies for his party’s nomination.

Those who support the candidate’s values are encouraged to “endorse” the pledge by visiting HuckabeePledge.com and completing the attached form.

As for specifics, Huckabee cited numerous issues that he feels must be addressed. His pledge covers everything from general – “I will adhere to the Constitution of the United States” – to more nuanced positions including his support for judicial and legislative term limits.

Though he has faced some backlash by some conservatives who believe he supports the federal Common Core educational standards, Huckabee promised to push for its eradication.

“I will fight to kill Common Core,” his pledge states, “and restore common sense. Education is a family function – not a federal function.”

Regarding taxes, Huckabee’s pledge includes his support for the so-called FairTax – and subsequent abolition of the IRS – and his promise to “veto any and all efforts to increase taxes.”

He also took a firm stance against such issues as gay marriage, abortion, and amnesty while promising to fight on behalf of veterans, seniors, and Israel.

The Washington Times described the pledge as evidence of Huckabee’s “populist agenda,” which is hardly the first time the populist label has been applied to him. In an interview with Peggy Noonan for the Wall Street Journal, he addressed the persistent claim:

People say, ‘Huckabee is a populist.’ If it means I have a connection to those who do not have any connection to that axis of power, then yes.

Do you support Huckabee’s pledge? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Missouri Legislature Passes Right-To-Work Legislation

The Republican-controlled Missouri General Assembly passed a bill Wednesday that would make the Show-Me State the 26th right-to-work state in the country.

The House voted 92 to 66 for the right-to-work legislation Wednesday, while the Senate voted 21 to 13 Tuesday. As The New York Times notes, the bill would forbid employers from making union dues or representation fees mandatory. The map below shows which states have comparable legislation:

National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation

National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation

“Freedom to work is necessary if Missouri wishes to regain a competitive standard with the states that surround us,” said state Rep. Eric Burlison, a Republican who sponsored the legislation. “It will encourage job growth and help unions become stronger.”

But the bill has a large hill to overcome, with a Democratic governor and the lack of a veto proof majority. 109 votes are needed in the House, while 23 are needed in the Senate. One Republican lawmaker asserts passing the bill this late in the legislative term was an ineffective move. “This symbolic gesture has killed all of our bills,” argued Republican state Rep. Kevin Engler. “Does this make any sense?”

Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon (D) has signaled he would veto the bill. “Attacking workers and weakening the middle class will not create jobs,” he said in a statement Thursday:

In fact, rolling back the rights of working people would weaken our economy by lowering wages and making it harder for middle-class families to move up the economic ladder.

This bill also takes the extreme step of subjecting Missouri employers to criminal and unlimited civil liability, which would stifle growth and discourage investment in our state. At a time when our economy is picking up steam and businesses are creating good jobs, this so-called right-to-work bill would take Missouri backwards.

The Missouri GOP also has another issue to deal with. State House Speaker John Diehl resigned Thursday after the Kansas City Star alleged he had a sexual relationship with a college-aged intern, according to Talking Points Memo.

h/t: KCRU

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Breaking: John Bolton Not Running For President

Former Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton will not be running for president in 2016, he said Thursday.

05142015_Steve Peoples Tweet_Twitter

“I have decided not to seek the Republican nomination for president,” Bolton said in a video obtained by The Associated Press. “I believe I can make the strongest contribution to our future by continuing as a clear and consistent advocate for a strong, Reaganite foreign policy that values peace through strength.” The AP gives further background:

Bolton, a leading foreign policy voice in the George W. Bush White House, spent recent months testing his message in early-voting states. In calling for a muscular foreign policy, he often lashed out at Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton, as well as Republican rivals — Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul in particular — who favor a reduced U.S. footprint in the world.

Had Bolton jumped in the race, this would have been his competition:

  • Sen Ted Cruz, R-Texas
  • Paul
  • Sen Marco Rubio, R-Fla.
  • Former Gov. Mike Huckabee, R-Ark.
  • Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina
  • Retired pediatric neurosurgeon Ben Carson.

The list would likely include former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida, Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, and Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin. All are expected to announce their decisions in the next several weeks.

“While I am not a candidate, I am certainly not going to sit this election out,” Bolton proclaimed. The former ambassador wants “to focus on the 2016 Republican presidential race to make certain that foreign policy is critical to winning the nomination.”

Bolton considered a bid as recently as November and tested his hawkish message in several of the early voting states. Earlier this year at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Bolton told Western Journalism that “we’ve got to elect a real president.”

“Nor will I stand idle while our president surrenders our national interests and liberals rally around his ideological twin: Hillary Clinton,” Bolton also said in the video.

Do you approve of John Bolton bowing out? Share your thoughts in the comments section.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Republican Introduces Pro-Gun Bill Designed To Protect Military Spouses

One Virginia lawmaker is hoping his concern for the wives and husbands of deployed service members will result in an expansion of their gun rights. Republican Rep. Scott Rigell recently introduced a bill that, if passed, would allow military spouses living in Virginia to purchase firearms while their families reside in the state.

There were several factors that led Rigell to propose such legislation.

“Considering the threats we face from Islamic extremists – foreign and domestic – and lone wolves,” he said, “it is prudent that our military families have the tools they need to protect their loved ones.”

As representative of the Virginia district with the most active duty military members, Rigell explained that he is uniquely attuned to the complaints of military families. Specifically, he said he has heard that a 1968 law has prevented the spouses of servicemen and women serving in other states from purchasing a gun in Virginia.

“We have an obligation to protect these men and women,” he asserted, “and ensure they have access to the resources they need to defend themselves and their families in any community they are stationed for duty.”

Rigell’s proposal would fill a gap he recognized in the aforementioned Gun Control Act, which allows service members to purchase firearms in the state they are stationed in but offers no such allowance for their spouses.

“Spouses should be able to purchase handguns in their state where their husband or wife is stationed,” he said. “They have the right to protect themselves; and this bill allows them to fully exercise their Second Amendment right.”

Do you think military spouses should have legal access to firearms? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Five Republicans Join With Dems To Shoot Down ObamaCare Exchange Subpoena

Five Republican senators joined with nine Democrats recently to vote down Small Business Committee Chairman David Vitter’s subpoena to determine which members of Congress may be responsible for defrauding the government through the District of Columbia’s Obamacare exchange.

Vitter sought an un-redacted copy of the Obamacare application to determine who listed the number of employees as 45, which qualified congressional staff members for special small business employee subsidies.

What information Vitter could see from the application indicated it was clearly fraudulent: some of the employees listed on the application include “First Lady” and “Congress”

Not surprisingly, none of the nine Democrats on the committee offered support for the subpoena; however, all the Republicans on the committee, with the exception of Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., whose office was unresponsive, indicated they would vote with Vitter to issue the subpoena.

Vitter’s staff reached out multiple times to Paul’s office; but they were stonewalled, which was a mystery to the Louisiana senator. Paul has been vocal about his opposition to Obamacare and defrauding the taxpayers.

Michael Cannon, director of health-policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, told National Review, “We deserve to know who signed that application, because they are robbing taxpayers,” adding that we also deserve to “know who was directing them to do this. And so we have to follow the trail of breadcrumbs. This is the next breadcrumb, and whoever is farther up the trail wants to stop Vitter right here.”

Four Republicans senators–Mike Enzi (Wyo.), James Risch (Idaho), Kelly Ayotte (N.H.), and Deb Fischer (Neb.)–indicated they would be supporting Vitter’s subpoena and then pulled their support before the vote, which ended up being 5 in favor of the subpoena and 14 against. Paul voted against the subpoena, as well. The National Review reports:

Senate staffers, according to a top committee aide, reported seeing Missouri senator Roy Blunt make calls to at least two Republican committee members, lobbying them, at Mitch McConnell’s behest, to vote no on subpoenaing the exchange. By the time the committee was called to quorum, Enzi, Risch, Ayotte, and Fischer voted no.

Some have speculated whether McConnell put the pressure on Paul to withhold his support or vice versa, because it would be embarrassing to one of their offices what the un-redacted copy of the Obamacare exchange application would reveal.

Mark Levin told his listeners last week, he believes blackmail was afoot and Paul was doing McConnnell’s dirty work.

“The answers he has given do not make sense,” Cannon added regarding Paul’s vote. “And when someone with his principles does something that is so obviously against his principles, and does not give an adequate explanation, you begin to think that politics is afoot. It would have to be someone very powerful that made him a powerful pitch — or threat — to keep him from doing this.” Paul’s press secretary told National Review that the senator “examines every opportunity to [oppose Obamacare] individually, and does not base his vote on requests made by other senators, including the majority leader.”

Republican senators Marco Rubio (Fla.), Tim Scott (S.C.), Cory Gardner (Colo.), and Joni Ernst (Iowa) voted with Vitter to subpoena DC Obamacare exchange to obtain an un-redacted copy of the application.

Regarding those who voted against Vitter, a senior GOP committee aide said, “The people who signed these documents perpetrated a fraud on the taxpayers, and the senators who just voted to kill this subpoena are now complicit ‎in that fraud.”

“The message is clear: Congress should be able to lie so that members can get a special Obamacare subsidy unavailable to anyone else at that income level,” Vitter said. “Designating the House and Senate as ‘small businesses’ with 45 employees is not right. And we owe it to our constituents to find out how this was permitted to happen.”

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth