Dobson camp denies rumors of Huckabee endorsement

[lynnf]

for those out there that may be working on trying to get Dobson to endorse Ron Paul, time may be short -- see story below.

lynn


Dobson camp denies Huckabee endorsement
Magazine says sources stand by story saying evangelical leader ready to hit campaign trail

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58610

......

The American Spectator, however, in an update, says its anonymous sources stand by the report.

In its online "Prowler" column today, the Spectator cited sources "close to Dobson" who "say that within the next 10 days he is coordinating an endorsement plan" with Huckabee.

.......

[lynnf]

bumpety, bump, bump

[Fox McCloud]

I would really like to personally talk to this guy, face to face. As a fellow Christian and former supporter of the Iraq war and nearly ALL of Bush's policies, I may have a unique angle on the entire situation...plus, I'd be sure to show him a few things Ron's said.

No one's more pro-life than Ron Paul in this entire Presidential running...all the others say they'll do "this or that"; Ron actually does "this or that" (Sanctity of Life Act). He's also about the only one who has attempted to protect the original definition of marriage, too...

That plus a whole slew of others things...

I doubt he'll endorse Ron Paul, but...miracles do happen.

[Korey Kaczynski]

I'm wondering if these evangelicals are planning on a power grab, that is, they want to support a third party candidate so THEY themselves can get ahold of more influence, whereas the Republican party may be a bit limiting for them. Especially with Rudy "Drag Queen" Giuliani as the so-called frontrunner.

Maybe they want to form a viable third party with theocratic leanings?

[Fox McCloud]

I'm wondering if these evangelicals are planning on a power grab, that is, they want to support a third party candidate so THEY themselves can get ahold of more influence, whereas the Republican party may be a bit limiting for them. Especially with Rudy "Drag Queen" Giuliani as the so-called frontrunner.

Maybe they want to form a viable third party with theocratic leanings?

Actually, that's about what they want to do; Dobson said that if Giuliani gets the nomination, he's going to try to start a "Christian Party".

I would like a Christian party...if they supported the Constitution...but sadly, they'd probably blow right on by it...fielding very oppressive, fascist-like candidates.

Sadly, so few Christians have a true understanding of the Constitution and how things work...it's pathetic. Still...there's other that do, and those people completely overjoy me.

[Jordan]

I'm really surprised he doesn't endorse Huckabee.

Huckabee is by far the most socially conservative person in the running and I'm convinced if made president, he'll completely ignore the Establishment clause. That seems like a good candidate for todays superchurch religions.

[Fox McCloud]

I'm really surprised he doesn't endorse Huckabee.

Huckabee is by far the most socially conservative person in the running and I'm convinced if made president, he'll completely ignore the Establishment clause. That seems like a good candidate for todays superchurch religions.


Eh, I disagree there; I think Ron is most conservative on all fronts....Christians have just be duped by their pastors/televisions/etc into thinking what a "socially conservative" candidate really is.

[Korey Kaczynski]

Actually, that's about what they want to do; Dobson said that if Giuliani gets the nomination, he's going to try to start a "Christian Party".

I would like a Christian party...if they supported the Constitution...but sadly, they'd probably blow right on by it...fielding very oppressive, fascist-like candidates.

Sadly, so few Christians have a true understanding of the Constitution and how things work...it's pathetic. Still...there's other that do, and those people completely overjoy me.

The problem is that most of the evangelical types are obsessed with controlling people: they want laws, laws, laws, laws, laws. If you saw the value voters debate you know what I'm talking about. I suppose they're the inheritants of the puritan mindset.

[Korey Kaczynski]

Eh, I disagree there; I think Ron is most conservative on all fronts....Christians have just be duped by their pastors/televisions/etc into thinking what a "socially conservative" candidate really is.

Exactly; just because the Huckster gives lip service to family matters and whatnot doesn't mean he's conservative. In fact, wouldn't the conservative position be to ALLOW people to FIX their OWN problems? Huckabee, Romney, and formerly Brownback all ran on platforms where THEY themselves would fix the country's family problems. Family issues can only be resolved bottom up, not from the mandate of these idiots.

Huck wants to solve people's problems for them, be it extra social security of his poorly thought out national smoking ban. That's not conservative. That's communist, and downright so.

[Jordan]

Eh, I disagree there; I think Ron is most conservative on all fronts....Christians have just be duped by their pastors/televisions/etc into thinking what a "socially conservative" candidate really is.

Socially conservative today means antigay, antiabortion, and supporting religious groups with government funds and banning the actions through law.

Ron is conservative in the way he wants a less powerful government. Not in the way he wants the gov in everyones business.

[Korey Kaczynski]

Socially conservative today means antigay, antiabortion, and supporting religious groups with government funds and banning the actions through law.

Ron is conservative in the way he wants a less powerful government. Not in the way he wants the gov in everyones business.

Old-school conservatives wanted people to solve their own problems. These modern conservatives want to solve people's problems for them.

I don't think these modern conservatives, these neoconservatives, are really conservatives. Weren't some of them former followers of Trotsky? ;)

[Jordan]

Old-school conservatives wanted people to solve their own problems. These modern conservatives want to solve people's problems for them.

I don't think these modern conservatives, these neoconservatives, are really conservatives. Weren't some of them former followers of Trotsky? ;)

Huckabee just seems like someone that Dobson would be all over.

[Korey Kaczynski]

Huckabee just seems like someone that Dobson would be all over.

Yes, exactly. If Huck doesn't get a VP position then it's possible he could be their nominee -- I can't think of anybody sleazier and more manipulative then he is. They'd be all over him, especially since he's a great speaker in terms of fluffing things up with touchy-feely crap.

Even Guiliani has more integrity than Huck; Huck's pretty much an act, at least for his speaking style, whereas with Guiliani what you see is what you get.

[Fox McCloud]

and you know, Huckabee (like Giuliani) probably shouldn't be running under the Republican ticket.....as someone pointed out, he's basically a pro-life, anti-gay liberal. He supports amnesty, and he even wanted to give illegals in his city funding for college (plus there's a slew of other things that should raise anyone's eyebrows).

[Johnnybags]

Robertson goes for ghouls, dobson/huckabee and then huckster accepts vp. Its a gameplan, and everyone knows it. Ghouls get northeast and hukcster the bible belt.
A Paul/Sanford ticket would crush them.

[Korey Kaczynski]

and you know, Huckabee (like Giuliani) probably shouldn't be running under the Republican ticket.....as someone pointed out, he's basically a pro-life, anti-gay liberal. He supports amnesty, and he even wanted to give illegals in his city funding for college (plus there's a slew of other things that should raise anyone's eyebrows).

But Huck said that we're one nation under god, and that we're the United States not the divided states of america, so he has to be conservative.... RIGHT?!?!!? ;)

[Fox McCloud]

But Huck said that we're one nation under god, and that we're the United States not the divided states of america, so he has to be conservative.... RIGHT?!?!!? ;)

his logic was beyond stupid there....

Yes, I believe that we are one nation under God.....but that doesn't mean that we all have to support the war....

It's better to examine what a person does...then what he says.

The sad thing is, if the war wasn't a factor in this election (ie: it ended/never happened) Ron Paul would probably be the landslide winner.....what angers me is there's a few people that I've talked to that say "I agree with Ron on every issue...except the war." As someone pointed out though "isn't it better to vote for a candidate that you overall agree with more, than to vote on a candidate simply because he supports the war?"

[Fox McCloud]

this would be a great article for Dobson:


AN APPEAL TO MY FELLOW PASTORS





By Pastor Chuck Baldwin

November 6, 2007

NewsWithViews.com

Recently, Iowa pastors gathered to hear my presentation in Des Moines on behalf of Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul. After listening to me, they then heard ten-term Republican Texas Congressman Ron Paul himself.

Consider how Congressman Paul's message impacted Pastor Jim Hartman of the Assembly of God church in Conrad, Iowa. "I've been supporting Mike Huckabee, but I would say I'm leaning real strong toward Ron Paul." Hartman supported President Bush four years ago and explained, "Up until the last six months I had not allowed myself to imagine that we'd been let down by Bush." As for Iraq, he said, "I don't think we were prepared to understand that culture and to work with that culture." He said he now feels "humble and I feel kind of bad that I haven't done a better job of being faithful to Ron Paul's kind of integrity." [Source: MSNBC, Oct. 30, 2007]

Integrity: that is the issue drawing millions to Ron Paul, including young people. The night before I spoke, nearly 700 students gathered at Iowa State University in Ames to hear Dr. Paul. One of those students wrote me recently. His name is Nathan Rockman. He wrote, "As a columnist for the Iowa State Daily here on campus, I have seen first hand what can be described as Ron Paul fever. Since Dr. Paul visited this past Friday, his message of freedom and liberty has been spreading through campus like wildfire . . ."

Ron Paul doesn't recruit artisan spin writers and bloggers to wear down those who might question his past dealings. He doesn't need to. There are no missing hard-drives, ethics violations, and taxpayer funds used for personal use that need to be spun away. He still refuses to participate in the lucrative Congressional pension fund and returns a portion of his Congressional office budget back to the U.S. Treasury each year.

This kind of integrity moved Pastor Hartman, the students at Iowa State University, and many more like them.

Ron Paul has been fighting for the right to life from the beginning of his public career. Dr. Paul is rock-solid on pro-life. After all, he has helped over 4,000 women deliver their babies into the world in his obstetrics practice in Lake Jackson, Texas. He proposed the "Sanctity of Life Act of 2005" (and 2007), which would require that "human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency." Has he recently discovered these pro-life convictions? Not at all. Congressman Paul introduced the Human Life Amendment in Congress in his very first term of Congress, a couple of years after Roe v. Wade was first handed down.

Is Ron Paul a libertarian, as some use in a throw-away line, often intended to move the listener to discard him without thought? Yes, on areas of fiscal, economic and judicial liberty, he is. But, he is also a social conservative and a Constitutionalist.

Ron Paul's priorities are right with marriage. He and his wife, Carol, have been married for more than fifty years. He believes marriage should be between a man and a woman and defends that principle with his vote, where and when he has the Constitutional authority to do so. For example, Dr. Paul strongly supports the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Candidly, though, Ron Paul does not believe (and neither do I) that the U.S. Government needs to be defining that which God has already defined in His Word.

Where pastors often become confused about Ron Paul is that when he is resisting the unconstitutional centralization of our federal government, he is often perceived as being anti-family. Many in these pro-family movements themselves have been co-opted into believing that the solutions to our family problems come in the form of more unconstitutional federal legislation and programs. And when one does not agree with these unconstitutional remedies, they conclude that he or she is "anti-family." Such people mean well but are confused.

America would be much better off if we Christian pastors taught the need for Christ-honoring resistance--at the local level--to anti-family federal intrusions. We should call on our congregations to vote out of office any judge who passes rulings designed to pervert the Biblical family. That doesn't take a Constitutional amendment. It just takes courageous pastors and people who understand that judges, too, must respect the Constitution and our Christian heritage.

In fact, adherence to the Constitution protects our freedom of speech and assembly; our freedom of worship; our right to keep and bear arms; our right to a trial by jury; the right to be secure in our own homes against police overreach; our right to witness for Christ in public, as a Christian; the right to own property; the right to not be deprived of life or property without due process of law; the right to face our accusers, and the right to keep government local and limited.

Keeping government local and limited is the cornerstone doctrine of American government. Ron Paul understands this more than any other candidate running today.

Most of the problems that we are now dealing with socially, culturally, financially, etc., stem from America abandoning the basic founding principle that "the government that governs least governs best."

Accordingly, America's commitment to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness has been (and is being) systematically stripped from us--not by State legislatures, but mostly by agencies of the federal government.

Consider how it has been federal courts that have banned prayer in school, and legalized abortion and homosexual marriage. Even in the liberal State of Massachusetts it was the courts (along with a compliant liberal governor, Mitt Romney), that forced acceptance of homosexual marriage upon the people.

The solutions to these problems do not reside in more federal legislation. All that does is strengthen the scope and power of the federal judiciary.

The only ones who have anything to fear from Ron Paul are those who believe in Big Government.

You see, Ron Paul is actually calling on us pastors and Christians to stop seeing the federal government as one "in whom we live and move and have our being." Jesus Christ is our Savior and Lord, not the federal government. Have we not, in a material way, set up the federal government as our functional Lord and Savior? When we look to the federal government to solve our moral and spiritual problems, that is exactly what we are doing.

When it comes to the war in Iraq, I firmly believe that Christian conservatives have been duped by the neocons. Dr. Paul--an Air Force veteran and proponent of a strong national defense--opposed the unprovoked and pre-emptive invasion of Iraq, and rightly so. Time has certainly vindicated Dr. Paul's principled position. There was a much better way to deal with al-Qaeda.

Soon after 9/11, Congressman Paul introduced H.R. 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. According to Paul, "A letter of marque and reprisal is a constitutional tool specifically designed to give the president the authority to respond with appropriate force to those non-state actors who wage war against the United States while limiting his authority to only those responsible for the atrocities of that day. Such a limited authorization is consistent with the doctrine of just war and the practical aim of keeping Americans safe while minimizing the costs in blood and treasure of waging such an operation."

This is precisely what President Thomas Jefferson did when America's ships were confronted with Barbary pirates on the high seas.

If the United States government had listened to Ron Paul, we would not have lost nearly 4,000 American soldiers and Marines, spent over $1 trillion, and gotten bogged down in an endless civil war from which there is no equitable extraction. Furthermore, had we listened to Dr. Paul, Osama bin Laden would no doubt be dead, as would most of his al-Qaeda operatives, and we would be less vulnerable to future terrorist attacks, instead of being more vulnerable, which is the case today.

One thing that Pastor Hartman brought up in our meeting in Iowa was the sentiment of many Christians and pastors to defend Israel. Dr. Paul stated that he did not believe that we do Israel any favors and we actually weaken Israel by our constant meddling and intervention. I agree.

Ron Paul is not Israel's enemy. And neither is he the enemy to Christian liberty and constitutional government.

Ron Paul's non-interventionist and constitutional foreign policy approach would help, not hurt, Israel to resolve tensions with their neighbors. Remember, Israel has more nuclear missiles to defend themselves than all of the Middle East nations combined. Believe me, Israel knows how to defend itself. And know this: America's constant meddling curses Israel more than it blesses.

Also consider this: according to published reports such as this one in the Houston Chronicle, Ron Paul is receiving more donations from military personnel than any other Presidential candidate in either party. Think seriously about this. Our active duty and retired military personnel clearly endorse with their own contributions Ron Paul's non-interventionist position above all others.

In the end, if the candidate is a sincere Christian, he will all the more readily obey his or her oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. After all, does not our Lord tell us that our yea is to be yea and our nay is to be nay? In other words, genuine believers are to be true to their word. How, then, could a true Christian make a promise before God and the American people to preserve, protect, and defend the U.S. Constitution and then turn around and ignore that promise?

Ron Paul lives his Christian faith and takes his oath to the Constitution seriously. What more could we ask for in a Presidential candidate? Every Christian pastor should seriously consider Congressman Ron Paul. Here is his website:

© 2007 Chuck Baldwin - All Rights Reserved

[me3]

bumpety, bump, bump
What does this have to do with the Grassroots? How about, "Other Politics"?

[entropy]

sorta related to Christian votes....As i was driving to the rally in Philly today I saw a bumper sticker. " who would Jesus bomb" great play on the "what would Jesus do" phrase.

I want one of those and I think it cuts straight to the point as to why the conservative Christians should jump on our ticket.

Unfortunately according to my father in law, who is a very active religious man, the Christians feel it is their responsibility to support Isreal(Gods chosen people) to secure their future in heaven. I know this is rather vague he did go thru the logic with me and I could see how it could impact the religious right. Something along the lines of......those who support Isreal will be blessed those who abandon her will be punished.

BTW, I have turned him and he now says he will write in RP if he does not get the nomination.

[weatherbill]

I have a very powerful flyer for churches, for flyering church parking lots....

PM me your email to get it....

[Matt Collins]

See this post on the REAL reason Huckabee is around:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=33877







.

[Fox McCloud]

Unfortunately according to my father in law, who is a very active religious man, the Christians feel it is their responsibility to support Isreal(Gods chosen people) to secure their future in heaven. I know this is rather vague he did go thru the logic with me and I could see how it could impact the religious right. Something along the lines of......those who support Isreal will be blessed those who abandon her will be punished.

Ok, here's my Christian perspective on this:

I once bought into this, but really, us giving them cash and basically telling them to "do whatever you want" is hurting them more than helping them. They're supposedly "God's people", yet they outrightly reject him...and we fund this? That's not helping them, that's cursing them.

Also Christians should really stop and examine if the current state of Israel is God's Israel or man's Israel. After all, at the core of Israel's ideologies lies an anti-Christian, anti-God manifesto known as Zionism. It's rather interesting to note that there are more orthodox Jews leaving Israel than returning to it.

Also, the Bible never mentions that Israel will come back together because of man's workings....one only has to look at the passage where the Lord showed Ezekiel the valley of the dry bones....the passage doesn't say "like unto" or use any figurative language...it implies it's something God will directly do.

I truly have my doubts if the current state of Israel is the real Israel...

but even if they are, by funding them we are most definitely not helping them...we're cursing them...and will only bring harm and punishment to our own selves.


Of course...if you try to tell the average Christian that, they'll glaze over....sadly.

[rfbz]

Actually, that's about what they want to do; Dobson said that if Giuliani gets the nomination, he's going to try to start a "Christian Party".

I would like a Christian party...if they supported the Constitution...but sadly, they'd probably blow right on by it...fielding very oppressive, fascist-like candidates.

Sadly, so few Christians have a true understanding of the Constitution and how things work...it's pathetic. Still...there's other that do, and those people completely overjoy me.

You would like a Christian party? Why would you want to mix government and religion?

I have absolutely no problem with religion, and most Christians I know are good people. But when you start mixing it with government, it seems like they tend to take things too far. You know in texas it's illegal to sell sex toys? (they do sell them but aren't allowed to call them what they are, dildos must be called educational models).
Check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXUUsDGxkU

[Fox McCloud]

You would like a Christian party? Why would you want to mix government and religion?

I have absolutely no problem with religion, and most Christians I know are good people. But when you start mixing it with government, it seems like they tend to take things too far. You know in texas it's illegal to sell sex toys? (they do sell them but aren't allowed to call them what they are, dildos must be called educational models).
Check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXUUsDGxkU

*sigh* I figured someone would eventually say something like this.

I didn't mean it in that light, I meant something along the lines of a Constitutionalist-Libertarian leanings....

Basically, a party that supports Ron's ideologies and follows/emulates them.

[rfbz]

sorry Fox McCloud wasn't trying to criticize you, just asking

[Fox McCloud]

sorry Fox McCloud wasn't trying to criticize you, just asking

Oh ok....sorry for not clarifying either.

I just wish Christians would read their Bibles more....if they did, they'd immediately abandon the conservatives and becomes Constitutionalists or Liberterians (probably both).

No doubt they'd remain pro-life and pro-traditional marriage....but that's just something you can't really change with most Christians...heck, look at Ron Paul, he's still both those things. :)