Posted on 01/04/2008 11:55:25 PM PST by Ol' Sparky
I will eventually.
Linked thousands of times? Really? Must have missed that, I don’t think I even heard of the guy before the last couple of months. For that matter didn’t hear of Huckaby much before 3 or 4 months ago, and still don’t know enough about him. But I know too much about Giulani, Romney, Paul and McCain to consider them as anything more than possibly the lesser of two evils vs a democrat.
I urge you to consider these 5 words: Supreme Court Justice Bill Clinton.
Now, that may be an exaggeration, though not impossible (the man IS brazen). But a Dem president is almost certain to appoint 2, perhaps 3, Supreme Court justices in his/her first term.
By staying home you will consign yourself to a lifetime of the most liberal Supreme Court [and lower courts] you could ever have imagined. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face!
I understand the desire to emphasize "values". But I've long looked at it like this. Imagine my family had been direly threatened and I needed to hire someone provide on-site protection. One candidate is a good member of my church who proposes he will "heal the rift" between me and those threatening me and, thus, his men won't be heavily armed. The other man, a stranger, proposes an arsenal strong enough to discourage an attack. I'm going with the second guy. Security is my minimum threshhold.
“I can see why some here support Duncan Hunter. I wish I knew more about him.”
Then Damn it to Hell find out more about him. What the “Huck” is going on with individuals that call themselves conservative but don’t even go to the trouble of finding out the positions of candidates in one of the more important elections of the past thirty years? I support Thompson but Hunter would be good, too, even though I think his chances aren’t very good.
As a general rule I don’t worry a lot about the candidates with moderate to liberal positions if they don’t have a chance at the nomination, but when they are leading you have to take them down. Now is the time to take Huckabee down.
Thompson, a conservative?
You’re real funny. That site must be one of the “Huckers” since he isn’t listed. And I don’t think a bunch of quotes from the Associated Press and the NY Times mean a hell of a lot.
"We will vote for a Democrat if he just strokes our ego and tells us he's pro life.
Or worse than that according to some supporters on FR, its "Christian Bashing". Imagine, a born again Christian like myself cast out because I see through the Pharisee's charade.
Matt: 23;5 But for all their works they do to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries and enlarge the borders of their garments.
And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues.
And greetings in the market and to be called of men Rabbi Rabbi.
But be ye not called Rabbi for one is your Master even Christ.
Sorry, your a Christian Basher just face it.
Good point. Thats why I call the Huckophiles Pharisees
While I have no problem with prosperity, the Church makes more than enough money to combat the ills of the poor. If we walked in faith we would be able to "cast out devils, cleanse the lepers and raise the dead."
Compassionate Conservatism involves the government in affairs of the Body of Christ and alleviates the pressure of the leaders from performing their rightful duties,allowing them to become motivational speakers for money.
If Rush was as smart as he thinks he is, he'd be pushing Hunter over the top. Jackass.
The frustrating thing about this article, is that Duncan Hunter obviously meets the requirements he so desperately wants- but is again ignored.
President GWB is a practicing Christian who just sort of backed into being a politician, and remains proud of his faith.
Huckabee is a Christian who runs for office in order to promote and display his Christian faith.
There is a big difference.
Hmmm. Im not sure Huck has your attention yet freepers. Time to get your head out of freepville and back into reality.
We Desperately Need The “Confessing Church”
By Chuck Baldwin
January 4, 2008
This column is archived at
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20080104.html
If the reader has not already done so, I again urge you to read the
book, Hitler’s Cross, which was written by Erwin Lutzer and published
by Moody Press. This book should be “required reading” for every
pastor and Christian layman in America. In his book, Lutzer focuses on
the attitudes and actions of Germany’s pastors and churches during the
rise and reign of the Third Reich. It is a masterpiece.
For those of us living in a country and time far removed from Hitler’s
Germany, it is hard to comprehend how that nation’s Christians—and
especially its ministers—could have been so thoroughly taken in by
old Adolf. We assume such an event could never happen
again—especially to us. However, to any honest observer of history,
the conditions of the Church in America today are eerily similar to
those of the Church in Nazi Germany.
For one thing, as did the Church in Nazi Germany, the Church in
America has become infatuated with Big Government. Historically,
patriotism in the United States meant love for God, love for family,
and love for freedom and independence. Today, however, Christians of
all persuasions have come to accept and even embrace the Nanny State,
complete with its intrinsic obsession with an omnipotent federal
bureaucracy that exercises perpetual surveillance and absolute control
over every area of our lives.
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 Hitler
and his fellow propagandists. Yes, Martha, it appears that history
really does repeat itself.
When Ron Paul was asked about Mike Huckabee’s overt usage of a cross
for a campaign advertisement, he quoted Sinclair Lewis as saying,
“When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and
carrying a cross.” Many Christians railed against Dr. Paul for making
this comment. However, the truth is, Ron Paul (himself a committed
Christian) is one hundred percent right! (To see how Hitler used this
same tactic, I invite readers to note the photograph of the German
Fuhrer in Lutzer’s book, on page 75, which shows Hitler coming out of
church with a large emblem of the Cross directly over his head. This
photo was used extensively by Hitler during his political campaigns.)
More than any other Republican Presidential candidate, Mike Huckabee
carries his Big Government machinations on a cross. I strongly
recommend that readers take a look at Selwyn Duke’s excellent exposé
on Mike Huckabee at
http://www.newswithviews.com/Duke/selwyn79.htm
In his book, Lutzer notes that the tool Adolf Hitler used to ascend to
power in Germany was his ability to wrap the Nazi flag around the
Cross of Christ. In fact, Hitler often required that the Cross be
emblazoned directly in the middle of the Nazi flag. These flags were
not only prominently displayed in parades, but also in church
auditoriums.
As a result of Hitler’s brilliant deception, Christians throughout
Germany were convinced that he was “God’s man.” They saw him as more
than a political leader: he was a spiritual leader as well. They saw
him as their country’s President and as their Christian brother. If
Hitler said the German people needed to surrender their firearms, they
saw it as their Christian duty to comply; if Hitler said they needed
to enact a total surveillance society, they freely gave up their
privacy; if Hitler said Germany needed to invade other nations for its
security, Christians were among the first to volunteer; and if Hitler
said they could only be good Christians if they supported the Nazi
Party, they enthusiastically supported the Nazi Party.
In short, Germany’s Christians and pastors surrendered their hearts
and minds to Adolf Hitler, because they believed him to be one of
them. What they never would have surrendered to a professing agnostic,
they gladly surrendered to a professing Christian. Truly, fascism came
to Germany “wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross.”
Of course, there were a few in Germany who saw through Hitler’s
deception. Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a Christian minister who actively
opposed Hitler by organizing what he called the “Confessing Church.”
These were believers who would not surrender Christ’s sphere of
authority to Hitler. They saw through “Hitler’s Cross.” Unfortunately,
of the more than 14,000 pastors in Germany, only 800 joined with
Bonhoeffer.
To the vast majority of Germany’s pastors, Bonhoeffer was an
“extremist,” or a “kook,” or a “nut.” They relegated Bonhoeffer to the
fringe of Christendom. They believed Hitler and repudiated Bonhoeffer;
they chose Hitler’s “German Church” over the Confessing Church. In
retrospect, however, who would they follow today, if they had the
chance?
Likewise, many Christians and ministers today have succumbed to the
purveyors of internationalism. Issues such as trade, climate control,
health and education—and even war—are the tools globalists use to
construct their One World Order.
For example, Mike Huckabee’s success in Iowa is largely due to the
pastors and Christians of that State buying into his “Christian”
campaign. In a manner very similar to the 2000 campaign of George W.
Bush, Huckabee has carried his political campaign on the Cross. At the
same time, however, Mike Huckabee (as does George W. Bush) embraces
and promotes globalism. And, unfortunately, many Christians and
pastors do not seem to notice or care.
Exactly, why I was attached to Huckabee at first
He may not win in New Hampshire,
Personally, I think he is going to get slaughtered in NH
THE CHURCH OF HUCK: GROWING GOV’T. IN THE NAME OF RELIGION
by Selwyn Duke
December 25, 2007
NewsWithViews.com
There is a candidate in the presidential race who has a serious religion problem. No, it’s not Mormon Mitt or recently-religious Rudy. It is Mike Huckabee.
Just for the record, I share Huck’s faith in Jesus Christ. Not only have I no problem with religion in public life, I also understand that one can’t really separate a person’s world view from his politics. The political is merely a reflection of the spiritual; our politics doesn’t emerge in a vacuum.
So what is my problem with Huck? Do I accuse him of false religiosity?
No, what scares me is that his beliefs are all too real.
To that enormous secular conservative voting block out there, I will say, be not afraid. It’s not that Huck would impose religion through government. No, his actions would truly offend you.
He would impose statism in the name of religion through government.
While Huck will say what you want to hear to win office, he will not hear what you want to say once there. He will make tone-deaf Bush seem like a maestro. How do I know this?
He believes.
Belief can be a great thing, of course. Our Founding Fathers’ unprecedented respect for liberty was born of their Christian belief that rights were bestowed by the divine king and not worldly ones. Mother Teresa’s Christian beliefs inspired her to toil tirelessly to aid the destitute and dying in India. But whereas the founders kept charity out of government and Teresa kept government out of charity, Huck conflates the two in a disastrous mix of bad theology and bad political science. Perverting Christianity’s message and violating 2000 years of its tradition, he believes it is his Christian mandate to do good works through government.
With, of course, your money.
Huck invokes faith to justify ambitions ranging from the insidious to the idiotic. For the former, look no further than immigration, where Huck espoused the Christian principle, “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you,” while advocating an apparent open-door policy. This, despite the fact that if any good Christian were to find himself in a country illegally, he would expect its citizens to demand he return home.
This illegal-enabling attitude was also apparent in a deal to establish 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.
What was the motivation for these outrages? While some critics assert that he created a “magnet” for illegals at the behest of business interests, for certain is that Huck invoked his Christian faith while attacking supporters of the proof-of-citizenship bill. He labeled the measure irresponsible, un-American, anti-life and un-Christian. This prompted one of the assailed legislators, Jim Holt, to say that “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 Christian 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.”
(Note: This is why immigration crusader Tom Tancredo just exited the presidential race and endorsed Romney; he knows Mexicali Mike must be stopped.)
Huck explicitly cited the same “Christian duty” when explaining a lenient attitude toward felons that would allow for twice as many pardons under his Arkansas administration as those of his last three predecessors combined. Among those pardoned was the notorious Wayne Dumond, a thug serving 25 years for raping a teenage high school cheerleader. But Dumond had no feeling of Christian duty. He then raped and murdered a woman named Carol Sue Shields.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Duke/selwyn79.htm
They’re still not listening.
You seem like a nice guy and some things you say are very true. However this statement is way off base.
We do not deny ER treatment to anyone. True. However, illegals don't get a bill. The hospitals have tried it. Many times they give false names and addresses, so they get free treatment, at US taxpayer expense.
If I went to the ER, they would take my name, treat me, and send a bill to my mailbox.
If I fail to pay it, I will be dragged into court, and have my wages docked.
I don't mind them being treated, but they should be forced to pay, or sent back to whatever country they come from. This isn't mean, it is fair.
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.