Posted on 01/04/2008 4:02:36 PM PST by Suck My AR-16
"Have you wondered why Mike Huckabee is suddenly getting so much favorable attention from the mainstream media (who themselves are controlled by this gaggle of global elite)? To find the answer as to why he would suddenly become the darling of the media, look no further than the fact that just a couple of months ago, Mr. Huckabee appeared before the globalist-minded Council on Foreign Relations. (To read his speech click here [http://www.cfr.org/publication/14335/]) And when he did, it became abundantly clear that Huckabee was a man globalists could trust.
Huckabee, ... The Administration plans to increase the Army and Marines by about 92,000 over the next five years. We can and must do this in two to three years. I recognize that it will be a challenge to increase our enlistments without lowering standards and to expand our training facilities and personnel, but that is one of the reasons why we must increase our military budget. Right now we spend about 3.9% of our GDP on defense, while we spent about 6% in 1986 under President Reagan. We need to return to that 6% level. (A 50% INCREASE IN THE WAR MACHINE !)
"By the way, as you read Huckabee's speech, you will find that he is a leader on steroids! This is a man who intends to meddle in the affairs of nations around the world like you can't believe. Talk about entangling alliances: Huckabee intends for our State, Energy, Housing, Education, Justice, Treasury, and Transportation departments to spend untold billions of tax dollars on just about anything and everything, including schools, medical facilities, roads, sewage treatment, water filtration, electricity, and legal and banking systems in countries all over the globe. And that is exactly the kind of man the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) wants in Washington."
After reporting the connection between Mike Huckabee and the CFR, numerous associates quickly consigned my soul to the regions of the damned and accused me of being a "nut." Some emphatically declared that I had no right to criticize "a brother."
More importantly, however, is the question, Were my remarks accurate? And the answer is, Yes, they were.
We now learn that Mike Huckabee has named Richard Haass as his advisor on foreign policy. And just who is Richard Haass? He is the President of the CFR. And what does Haass believe? He believes that the United States (and every other country) must surrender its sovereignty to international or global entities. On February 21, 2006, Haass wrote a column for the Taipei Times entitled, "State Sovereignty Must be Altered in Globalized Era." This treatise is nothing more than an explicit solicitation for global government. (To read it click here) [http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2006/02/21/2003294021]
In his treatise, Haass writes, "For 350 years, sovereignty--the notion that states are the central actors on the world stage and that governments are essentially free to do what they want within their own territory but not within the territory of other states--has provided the organizing principle of international relations. The time has come to rethink this notion."
He also wrote, "Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function."
He went on to say, "[S]overeignty must be redefined if states are to cope with globalization."
He further said, "Globalization thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves . . . Sovereignty is no longer a sanctuary."
Haass also wrote, "Our notion of sovereignty must therefore be conditional, even contractual, rather than absolute."
Haass then summarized his desire for global government by saying, "The goal should be to redefine sovereignty for the era of globalization, to find a balance between a world of fully sovereign states and an international system of either world government or anarchy."
More than any other Republican Presidential candidate, Mike Huckabee carries his Big Government machinations in a water bucket for the elite. I strongly recommend that readers take a look at Selwyn Duke's excellent exposé on Mike Huckabee. [http://www.newswithviews.com/Duke/selwyn79.htm]
For example, according to today's Republican Presidential candidates (with the exception of Ron Paul), patriotism demands that we click our heels to the Department of Homeland Security and that we enthusiastically support aggressive, preemptive war. This is exactly the kind of redefinition of patriotism used so brilliantly by WWII Despots and their fellow propagandists. Yes, Martha, it appears that history really does repeat itself.
Huchabee ......... he believes it is his mandate to do good works through government.
............ With, of course, your money.
He established a partially taxpayer-financed Mexican consulate office in Little Rock, a scheme involving the lease of building space to the Mexican government for $1 a year. Then there was Huck's support of drivers' licenses, government benefits and in-state tuition rates for illegals and his opposition to a bill requiring proof of citizenship to vote.
"Christian charity does not include turning a blind eye to lawbreaking."
The problem, according to many, is that Huck doesn't agree. For instance, Daniel Larison at the American Conservative wrote,
". . . Huckabee regards it as his duty to help subvert and liberalize U.S. immigration laws. Together [with Sam Brownback], they embrace the notion that fidelity to the Gospel requires privileging the interests of non-citizens over those of fellow citizens."
Yet there is another fact: In his quest to fill the schools, Huck hasn't forgotten citizens. No, not at all. Huck signed a bill in Arkansas making it more difficult to homeschool your children, perhaps at the behest of the left-wing National Education Association (whose New Hampshire endorsement he captured). The homeschooling families supporting him should take note.
As governor, Huckabee sought and won a federal waiver for a plan to have the federal government — that’s you — subsidize health insurance for poor adult workers. Other Republicans, including President Bush, are opposing that remedy as creeping socialism.
Education affords the best comparison. Huckabee likes to lump the Clintons together as a unit, which is fair. So how do they stack up? Hillary’s tough school standards in 1983 forced some gradual school consolidation as school districts failed to measure up to the standards over five years.
Huckabee demanded wholesale and immediate school consolidation and abolished more than 50 of them in one swoop. He wanted more than 100 other school districts consolidated but the legislature balked. Does he dare boast about that? Taxes? Huckabee raised them considerably more in 10 years than Clinton did in 12. Clinton vetoed a 4-cent-a-gallon gasoline tax, and it passed over his veto.
Huckabee fathered a 4-cent increase in gasoline and diesel taxes. He claims before conservative audiences that the voters, not he, approved those taxes, but that is not true. Debt? The Clinton regime produced a small increase in general state indebtedness, to fund water projects and college construction.
Huckabee accounted for bigger increase in general state debt — the kind that taxpayers are obliged to service — than all previous Arkansas governors combined.
By the end of his ten-year tenure, Governor Huckabee was responsible for a 37% higher sales tax in Arkansas, 16% higher motor fuel taxes, and 103% higher cigarette taxes according to Americans for Tax Reform (01/07/07), garnering a lifetime grade of D from the free-market Cato Institute… Under Governor Huckabee's watch, state spending increased a whopping 65.3% from 1996 to 2004, three times the rate of inflation (Americans for Tax Reform 01/07/07). The number of state government workers rose 20% during his tenure (Arkansas Leader 04/15/06), and the state's general obligation debt shot up by almost $1 billion, according to Americans for Tax Reform.
IF You Want More W A R More S P E N D I N G More G R O W T H of G O V E R N M E N T ............
MIKE HUCKABEE IS YOUR LEADER !
Been away since October 6th 2006.
And this is what you come up with.
Hm.
Why not ? It’s TRUE
Should I don my aluminum foil shiny side in or shiny side out? I really need to know!
You’ve been here long enough to know: links and proof.
Thanks a bunch.
You also know better than to post vanities.
So would Huckabee spend more or less than Bush?
Ah Yes, I had it up earlier and it was taken down. So, I removed any inflammatory (?) items and posted it for my followers to see.
I don't see anyone refuting what you wrote..because they can't.
sw
That’d be RuPaul.
I Believe the links are in there. It’s a gathering of facts.
I don’t see any backing links, as is expected here on FR.
It’s also a vanity.
Which he admits was already taken down once.
(A 50% INCREASE IN THE WAR MACHINE !)
What, you have something against defending ourselves?
You don’t like having a strong defense?
You don’t like soldiers?
Huck was a disaster for his state, and would be a disaster for the country.
But the point is, this reads as if it were written by a Paulestinian anti-war moonbat cultist with the “Increase in the war machine!” commentary.
Show me where it would be bad to have a nice strong military.
(Only in Ron Paul’s mind is this a bad thing.)
Expected ? Where is that RULE ?
Here are the as posted LINKS
http://www.cfr.org/publication/14335/
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2006/02/21/2003294021
http://www.newswithviews.com/Duke/selwyn79.htm
It’s no vanity, it’s historical.
And yes I admitted it was taken down before. Now it’s been cleaned up. Will you forgive me ?
Ask the mods about that.
I’m sure they’d love to expain it.
Personally I do not have a problem with increasing our military budget and boots.
I would guess that you do not know the nature of spending currently for the military and the vast waste. Given that we need a strong defense we do not also need to bankrupt the taxpayer.
Six years in the Marines for me and every year since then defending the nation as I could. 18 + years in consumer credit and finance and I’ve seen what big government can do for the folks that pay and pay and pay for programs that have little to do with the functions of government.
If you want, raise the military spending by 50% and give it all to the men and women in the military, alive and dead, in wages and benefits, all tax free. That I’ll support.
Just one of many. Remember John Bolton, for instance?
>> Remember John Bolton, for instance?
Huckabee is a LIAR, and you are repeating the lie, shilling for him. Guess that makes you a liar, also.
“Huckabee told reporters in Iowa recently that he was being advised by John Bolton, the former US ambassador to the United Nations. But Bolton has said he never talked with Huckabee. Huckabee then said he had sent an e-mail to Bolton.”
More war is one of his good points.
“I would guess that you do not know the nature of spending currently for the military and the vast waste. “
I guess you don’t know anything about me.
Please, paint a picture of your credentials and knowledge base. I would really like to know.
John Bolton said that he spoke to Huckabee representative(s) and had an email from Huckabee, himself.
Huckabee said Bolton agreed to have further conversations and provide his insights.
That is agreeing to be an advisor.
That is the honest truth.
>> That is agreeing to be an advisor. That is the honest truth.
Of course, you have a LINK to back up your assertion.
Right?
Huckabee said Bolton agreed to have further conversations — and of course he would.
Bolton was asked numerous questions and never responded by saying he didn’t agree to have further conversations.
But, there are people who seek opportunities to spin....
Just look at Glenn Beck’s chip-on-the-shoulder, persecuted Mormon attacks on Huckabee, now.
Oh please, shower us with YOUR credentials, since you seem so eager to share.
And if you truly want to talk about vast waste, your eyes should point to the states of NY and NJ.
But your rants against the WAR MACHINE tell me your focus is elsewhere.
The number of soldiers and amount of spending required to defend ourselves effectively is not some fixed percentage of GDP or federal spending.
It varies with the challenges we face and the most effective way to combat them.
Presently the US faces no credible conventional military or naval competitor, unlike 1980 when the US appeared to be losing an arms race against the USSR. We are spending almost as much money on our military forces as the rest of the world put together.
While the Islamists remain a serious threat, it does not appear that increasing our numbers of armored divisions, aircraft carriers or nuclear subs, the quickest ways to spend a lot of money in the military, are the most effective way to fight Osama and his buddies.
Lots of our money is presently going to support bases in Germany and Korea. They’re wealthy countries. Let them defend themselves. Too much of our defense spending is still on autopilot from the Cold War.
We have different challenges today, and we need to change our priorities accordingly.
No Please, You Go First. I will be glad to follow with a response.
Yes my focus is on the national problems. If I lived in those states I may be concerned but not living there I have no standing in their courts or a voice in their legislative matters.
“unspun”? Hardly! You’re a major practitioner of spin, in the worst Clintonesque way.
>> But, there are people who seek opportunities to spin....
Just look at Glenn Beck’s chip-on-the-shoulder, persecuted Mormon attacks on Huckabee, now.
...as well as a BS artist, changing the subject away from the original topic, which is Huckabee’s (and your) LIES about Bolton advising him.
You provided zero evidence, no link, merely repeated the LIE.
>> Bolton was asked numerous questions and never responded by saying he didn’t agree to have further conversations.
What the heck sort of twisted logic is that supposed to be? I notice that you Huckster shills have to resort to this sort of “defense”, because your boy is indefensible.
PLAIN AND SIMPLE:
the ONLY “evidence” that Bolton is “advising” Huckabee is the liar Huckabee’s assertion.
Bolton FLATLY denied being an official or unofficial advisor for anyone, including Huckabee.
Source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7602.html
Quote from this article: “Bolton, however, has a different view. “I’d be happy to speak with Huckabee, but I haven’t spoken with him yet,” said Bolton, now a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington.
“I’m not an official or unofficial adviser to anyone,” said Bolton, who mentioned he’d had conversations with other Republican candidates but declined to name any names.
Asked to explain Bolton’s comments, Huckabee aides said the former Arkansas governor had e-mailed with Bolton. Bolton did not immediately respond to a request to address Huckabee’s e-mailing claims.”
Gentlemen, gentlemen.
The main question on Bolton is ....
Is John Bolton a good or bad adviser ?
Let’s keep the issue of Huckabee and his big government first at hand.
I'm making observations of what I saw and heard -- including the information you have reiterated. Call me a liar if you like.
The truth is, Bolton did not say he did not agree to have further conversations, presumably to give advise.
For Huckabee, someone giving advise is enough to be called and advisor.
For Bolton, he saw the press beating a path to his door and said he hadn't agreed to be an advisor. But he did not say he did not agree to have further correspondence (and it seems likely that he would have, since it would be likely that Huckabee and his people would have asked him!).
So, "advisor" and "not an advisor" are both factually accurate. Now, if you like, you can try to convince me that someone who advises during a conversation is not an advisor.
You are so full of crap.
A student of Bill Clinton, I see.
Nevermind the duty of a public servant to be truthful and above board — especially one who so forcefully professes Christianity like the Huckster.
No, if you can make misleading statements, and then play word games to “parse” your way out of your lies when you are caught... then that’s OK. Or, so you say.
Huckabee is a slimeball. Like a sociopath, he doesn’t hold himself to standards of right instead of wrong, clear truth over shaded lies. Apparently he attracts the same qualities in his supporters.
1. Why do you think Huckabee's staff spoke with Bolton?
2. Why do you think Huckabee himself, sent an email to Bolton?
3. Why do you think they would ask Bolton if they could have further conversations with him, about foreign policy?
Dano1, is that you?
Extremely Extreme Extremist, is that you? ;-)
“I’m not an official or unofficial adviser to anyone,” said Bolton.
WHAT PART OF THAT DIRECT QUOTE FROM JOHN BOLTON DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?
Why Huckster or his aides sent an email to Bolton is irrelevant; what IS relevant is that Huckster CLAIMED THAT BOLTON HAD ALREADY AGREED TO ADVISE HIM (not merely that he emailed him about an undisclosed topic). THIS IS, AND WAS, A **LIE** and you cannot spin it otherwise, “unspun”.
Huckabee WISHING that Bolton was his advisor; Huckabee emailing Bolton; Huckabee’s aides emailing Bolton; and so forth DO NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT HUCKABEE LIED and is backfilling to cover up his lie.
Honestly, what part of this don’t you get? I realize it’s hard to swallow that your chosen one is a LIAR but the evidence is as plain as day.
Huckabee and his staff communicated with Bolton and Bolton agreed to have further communications (presumably to offer advise, which would be something Bolton would hardly avoid).
If I had to guess which of them is being less candid, I would have to say it is Ambassador Bolton.
(sigh)
Let’s take it point by point.
>> Huckabee and his staff communicated with Bolton
True, according to Huckabee and his staff. Unsubstantiated by Bolton! But so what? I and my co-workers just “communicated” with Bill Gates — sent him an email asking him to be on our board of directors. But if I claim he is on my board, I’m a liar. Just like Huck was at the time he made his lying statement!
>> Bolton agreed to have further communications
Technically true... only because Bolton “agreed” to have further communications IN GENERAL with ANY UNNAMED candidate. But the implication that Bolton agreed to have further communications SPECIFICIALLY WITH HUCKSTER is false.
>> presumably to offer advise...
>> If I had to guess which of them is being less candid
Your presumptions and “guesses” are totally irrelevant.
You have yet to provide ANY substantiation of ANY of your claims WHATSOEVER. That makes you an ignorant shill only too eager to lie for your boy.
This free-wheeling conservative-libertarian frowns on your nanny-state candidate.
Scream that I am a liar though, if you like. Do you think that will help your cause?
Guys, guys !!
Lets talk about something important.
How may votes did the top three Democrats get in IOWA ?
Ans. - Democrats | Polls | County Results
Candidate Votes % of votes
Barack Obama 940 38%
John Edwards 744 30%
Hillary Clinton 737 29%
Now .... How many votes did the bottom three Republicans get ?
Ans. - Republicans | Polls | County Results
Candidate Votes % of votes
Ron Paul 11,598 10%
Rudy Giuliani 4,013 3%
Duncan Hunter 515 0%
Only Duncan hunter cannot beat any top democrat.
SOURCE MSMBC
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21229206
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.