Mike Huckabee: CFR Video

[therealjjj77]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGxMdNCjfRU

One of my brothers held the camera while the other brother asked him the question. Here is the conversation:

Questioner: "Now you were talking about national sovereignty, and you were formerly an asterisk in the polls, but shortly before you gained a meteoric rise, you had an article on foreign policy that was published in a publication that's basically attached to CFR, Council on Foreign Relations; Giuliani has spoken about it a little bit, and kind of gave a passive over brief of it, and I was kind of wondering what your perception was of Council on Foreign Relations, and what do you think it would do for or...??"

Huckster: "Yeah. In it there are a lot of good people involved. The head of it there is a guy, a very good friend of mine, named Richard Haass (http://www.cfr.org/bios/3350/richard_haass.html), a former high up official in the state department, very knowledgeable about international affairs, and you know, there's, uh, I think there's, uh, it's like anything. Ya know, there's some concern about, is it an international globalist organization, but my conversations with Haass have been very much where he does claim in the strong sovereignty of the United States, and uh, and I know that they have a lot of good research ??? in the organization."

Questioner: "You're dispelling a whole lot of myths here and ...???... and you actually spoke to Richard Haass and he said that sovereignty is ...

Huckster: "And him and I may not agree on everything but he's a very, well, no body can question his sense of patriotism or loyalty to the U.S., and he really does give it from that stand point, and a, uh, good guy. Thank you."

So here we have Huckster lying again. Here are quotes from Richard Haass:

"... states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function."

"Some governments are prepared to give up elements of sovereignty to address the threat of global climate change."

"... sovereignty must be redefined if states are to cope with globalization."

"Globalization thus implies that sovereignty... needs to become weaker."

"States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves..."

Richard N. Haass
CFR President

WATCH THE BLONDE LADY TRY TO CORNER MY BROTHER HOLDING THE CAMERA OFF!!! HE WAS SHOVED UP AGAINST THE WALL BY HER.

Also, we have Huckster saying he is very good friend's with Richard Haass and that he has spoken to him apparently on more than one occasion.

[idiom]

They stuck a probe in his head!

[therealjjj77]

They stuck a probe in his head!

Probably when he had his weight loss surgery.

[Fox McCloud]

hmmm, it sounds like Huckabee may has sold out to the CFR; either that or he's incredibly ignorant.

Sometimes I question if this man is even a true Christian.

[Dr.3D]

Here is a list of candidates who are members of the CFR.
Should we add Mike Huckabee as well?

Republicans:
Rudolph (Adolph) Giuliani
Mitt Romney
John McCain
Fred Thompson
Newt Gingrich

Democrats:
John Edwards
Barack Obama
Chris Dodd
Bill Richardson
Hillary Clinton.

[TheNewYorker]

Here is a list of candidates who are members of the CFR.
Should we add Mike Huckabee as well?

Republicans:
Rudolph (Adolph) Giuliani
Mitt Romney
John McCain
Fred Thompson
Newt Gingrich

Democrats:
John Edwards
Barack Obama
Chris Dodd
Bill Richardson
Hillary Clinton.

Mitt Romney has denied being a member of the CFR

[therealjjj77]

Here is a list of candidates who are members of the CFR.
Should we add Mike Huckabee as well?

Republicans:
Rudolph (Adolph) Giuliani
Mitt Romney
John McCain
Fred Thompson
Newt Gingrich

Democrats:
John Edwards
Barack Obama
Chris Dodd
Bill Richardson
Hillary Clinton.

Very good friends with the President of Council on Foreign Relations? I think Rick Scarborough couldn't have said it better: "Mike has always sought the validation of elites."

So what better way to seek their validation then to help them attain their plan of a one world order?

Remember, Mike Huckabee has been caught lying on several occasions, even more then his Arkansas predecessor, Bill Clinton.

[therealjjj77]

Mitt Romney has denied being a member of the CFR

So has Rudy Giuliani. So have other people running for offices in the past. Their name is removed from membership until after the elections are held.

[garrettwombat]

i think huck's campaign adviser is actually the president of CFR...

i may be mistaken but i have heard this from somewhere

so if not huck, still just as bad.

[therealjjj77]

i think huck's campaign adviser is actually the president of CFR...

i may be mistaken but i have heard this from somewhere

so if not huck, still just as bad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxZ_wTPl7ak&feature=related

Richard Haass brought up again by Huckabee. His adviser on Foreign Relations.

[Dr.3D]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxZ_wTPl7ak&feature=related

Richard Haass brought up again by Huckabee. His adviser on Foreign Relations.

Wow... this is pretty serious.... the CFR thinks they have the entire Republican and Democratic campaigns seeded and there is no way they can lose.

[idiom]

Boy they are good.

[therealjjj77]

Boy they are good.

These are good things to bring up to any Christian who has studied end times at all. The scripture says:

1 John 2
18 ¶ Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

Mike Huckabee is no longer in the pastorate. Why? If God calls a man to the pastorate then that calling does not change:

Romans 11:29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

We have an antichrist if not THE antichrist. I would hate for any of my brethren in Christ to be deceived and vote for him.

[Mesogen]

Um ... ok.

[therealjjj77]

Um ... ok.

Whether you agree about scriptures or not, if you are trying to persuade a Christian, you need to understand how to. The scriptures are our ultimate authority. Not some man claiming he's got God's approval.

Simply approach it this way and you will get much further then trying to tell them why YOU like Ron Paul.

Here is what you then get them thinking on:



I can say with confidence that most everyone here would agree that people should have the choice of what religion they believe. That this decision is between them and God and only God will punish or reward them based upon these decisions. That man should not interfere with another man's dealings with God or God's dealings with another man.

However, another aspect of liberty is that of financial liberty. Currently we live in a country where money is taken from the people by force and spent in the way that bureaucrats see best.

However, let's do a comparison and contrast of which way is better: You keep your money and spend it how you see fit(financial liberty) or your money is taken and spent how the bureaucrats in office see fit?

First, let's ask one question up front: Who is better at charity, Christ's church or the government?

I agree, churches and individuals can do a much better job at helping the poor and needy then the government ever can.

Here is how it used to happen:

Someone had a need or was poor because of ill decisions in their life and they came to a church for help. That church would help but only if they would change their life around and attend services. This allowed for many people to hear the gospel and get saved.

But now the government takes your money and the poor and needy only need to go to an office and fill out some paper work to get their food and checks from the government.

No need to change their life, no opportunity to hear about Christ...

But if that money had been left with the people, how much more then could you give to your church? Would your church then be able to afford helping out the needy and poor?

Instead the government spends that money on welfare, of whom the largest recipients are corporations who lobby them.

The schools are another example. The government takes our money to decide what type of education our children receive. Were there schools before government was involved? Absolutely. Even colleges? Who built most of the colleges we have? They were not built by the government. In fact, middle school attendance and graduation success were higher before the government ever got involved.

And what do our kids get taught now? Athiest theories and hinduistic theologies. You know they aren't teaching them anything from the scriptures. And everything that is taught is filtered with a new age twist.

You decide. Who is better at deciding where your money goes? You or the government?

Another item on the government's to-do list since the beginning of this last century, starting with Wilson, is the idea of spreading democracy around the world. Take your money and your children and send them out on the battlefield to give other nations democracy with a gun pointed at them.

I am of the belief that democracy is not going to save their souls. I'd much rather spend my money and send my children and brethren and myself, if need be, to reach them with the gospel.

So you decide, who is better at spending your money? You or the government?