More Controversy From GOP Candidate Writings Emerges

Three Republican legislative candidates have had more of their controversial writings exposed. The Arkansas GOP says it will no longer contribute to their campaigns, but has stopped short of asking them to withdraw from their races.

Kelly Dudzik with our content partner, Fox 16 News, reports that Rep. Jon Hubbard (R-Jonesboro), who came under scrutiny this weekend for a book he wrote that said slavery “was a blessing in disguise” for black people, reports on two other chapters.

In a portion of the book dedicated to solving immigration issues, Hubbard refers to “former residents of Mexico” by saying: “after all, you can only use just so many sod-layers and crop-pickers.”

The chapter describes a method for Americans to immigrate to Mexico in order to improve that country to the point that it would entice immigrants to not come to the U.S.  After years of building Mexican infrastructure, U.S. citizens could return and a “fool-proof” barrier could be built to keep immigrants out, Hubbard advocates.

Reports Dudzik:

Monday, representatives of the Republican Party did not want to speak with Fox 16 on camera, but wanted us to know the party does not plan on making any more financial contributions to Hubbard’s campaign.

The Republican Party also will no longer find the campaigns of Republican state legislative candidates Rep. Loy Mauch (R-Bismarck) and House candidate Charlie Fuqua (R-Batesville).

Hubbard, Mauch and Fuqua have come under fire for their controversial writings involving race and religion. The state GOP has given $7,500 worth of support to the 3 embattled candidates and other GOP elected officials and party-related organizations have given thousands of dollars more.

The Arkansas Times also reported on new segments of a book written by state House GOP candidate Charles Fuqua.

Fuqua advocates for a law to allow the death penalty for rebellious children. From the Times:

The maintenance of civil order in society rests on the foundation of family discipline. Therefore, a child who disrespects his parents must be permanently removed from society in a way that gives an example to all other children of the importance of respect for parents. The death penalty for rebellioius children is not something to be taken lightly. The guidelines for administering the death penalty to rebellious children are given in Deut 21:18-21:
…
This passage does not give parents blanket authority to kill their children. They must follow the proper procedure in order to have the death penalty executed against their children. I cannot think of one instance in the Scripture where parents had their child put to death. Why is this so? Other than the love Christ has for us, there is no greater love then [sic] that of a parent for their child. The last people who would want to see a child put to death would be the parents of the child. Even so, the Scrpture provides a safe guard to protect children from parents who would wrongly exercise the death penalty against them. Parents are required to bring their children to the gate of the city. The gate of the city was the place where the elders of the city met and made judicial pronouncements. In other words, the parents were required to take their children to a court of law and lay out their case before the proper judicial authority, and let the judicial authority determine if the child should be put to death. I know of many cases of rebellious children, however, I cannot think of one case where I believe that a parent had given up on their child to the point that they would have taken their child to a court of law and asked the court to rule that the child be put to death. Even though this procedure would rarely be used, if it were the law of land, it would give parents authority. Children would know that their parents had authority and it would be a tremendous incentive for children to give proper respect to their parents.

You can read more at this link.