Huckabee IS Purpose Driven

[SoftTouch]

http://benotconformed.wordpress.com/...e-driven-fame/

2 eLLe
SOUND THE ALARM
Subject: Huckabee Purpose Driven

http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cf...ew&Blog_id=658

Don’t know if you all know this yet …but baptist preacher 2008 Rep. Pres. candidate Huckabee is Purpose Driven (PD).

Ref. Link is to Huckabee’s official web page above…his blog…Huckabee uses PD’s founder, Rick Warren’s quote…hoping for an official endorsement from him. Purpose Driven is a cult that has taken over the mainstream church.

SERIOUS PROBLEM: There are 38.8 million baptist in the USA. This is what has spiked Huckabee ahead in the polls suddenly. This could spell disaster for the US if these millions of baptists vote. Approx. 50% of voters vote, then say, the last election went something like 62 million for Bush vs. 59 million for Kerry-Dems. —you see, now in 2008, we have 38 million baptist….then, add on to that, millions of foolish nonbaptist christians who will get on the bandwagon–especially, if Dobson and other ‘leaders’ endorse Huckabee? Huckabee has the baptist’s vote…then, think if PD Warren does official endorse him. Huckabee is the worst choice on the republican ticket–and the ‘chrisians’ are fixed to give us another Bush. I’ve friends personally who were PD ‘resisters’ and were thrown out of Lamar Baptist Church in TX. Huckabee (and you know the baptist demonination has fully accepted PD false teachings) does not recognize the error of PD—what kind of christian is he–another deluded one, like universalist GW?

(Note from ST: Not ALL Baptists have accepted the False PD teaching... the Independent Fundamental Baptists seem to be keeping their distance - Thank The Lord!!!)

[Adopted Son]

Soft Touch,

Are we worse off if Huckabee wins the election, than say....Hillary or John Edwards? I am searching for the least offensive person to vote for and although it doesn't please me that Huckabee "appears" to have OWG aspirations and now you cite PD beliefs, I am still considering him among the least offensive. But who in your mind is better?

[IM2L844]

As long as you continue to confuse libertarian philosophy (which is not regulated by a clear set of ridged definable political platforms) with the libertine philosophy (which is unrestrained by moral convictions) or the liberal philosophy of mandating Marxist federalization of social issues, Huckabee will be your only choice.

I don't see that much difference between the candidates you listed above.

There is only one person in the race that I think will actually put forth any real effort toward making any discernable progress in stopping the wholesale slaughtering of millions of people.

"Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the "right" of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the "property rights" of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder".

That issue is more important to me than whether or not it is the federal government or the state and local governments that have the rights and responsibilities to determine the legality of...(insert favorite rhetoric here).

We live in times of great uncertainty when men of faith must stand up for our values and our traditions lest they be washed away in a sea of fear and relativism. As you likely know, I am running for President of the United States, and I am asking for your support.

I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator.

I have worked tirelessly to defend and restore those rights for all Americans, born and unborn alike. The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideal of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.

In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman. In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, H.R. 1094. I am also the prime sponsor of H.R. 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn. I have also authored H.R. 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.” Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken and will continue to advocate direct action to restore protection for the unborn.

I have also acted to protect the lives of Americans by my adherence to the doctrine of “just war.” This doctrine, as articulated by Augustine, suggested that war must only be waged as a last resort--- for a discernible moral and public good, with the right intentions, vetted through established legal authorities (a constitutionally required declaration of the Congress), and with a likely probability of success.

It has been and remains my firm belief that the current United Nations-mandated, no-win police action in Iraq fails to meet the high moral threshold required to wage just war. That is why I have offered moral and practical opposition to the invasion, occupation and social engineering police exercise now underway in Iraq. It is my belief, borne out by five years of abject failure and tens of thousands of lost lives, that the Iraq operation has been a dangerous diversion from the rightful and appropriate focus of our efforts to bring to justice to the jihadists that have attacked us and seek still to undermine our nation, our values, and our way of life.

I opposed giving the president power to wage unlimited and unchecked aggression, However, I did vote to support the use of force in Afghanistan. I also authored H.R. 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. 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 aggression 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.

On September 17, 2001, I stated on the house floor that “…striking out at six or eight or even ten different countries could well expand this war of which we wanted no part. Without defining the enemy there is no way to know our precise goal or to know when the war is over. Inadvertently more casual acceptance of civilian deaths as part of this war I'm certain will prolong the agony and increase the chances of even more American casualties. We must guard against this if at all possible.” I’m sorry to say that history has proven this to be true.

I am running for president to restore the rule of law and to stand up for our divinely inspired Constitution. I have never voted for legislation that is not specifically authorized by the Constitution. As president, I will never sign a piece of legislation, nor use the power of the executive, in a manner inconsistent with the limitations that the founders envisioned.

Many have given up on America as an exemplar for the world, as a model of freedom, self-government, and self-control. I have not. There is hope for America. I ask you to join me, and to be a part of it.

Sincerely,

Ron Paul

[prodigal]

Huckabee is a nut job.

[SoftTouch]

Now, check this out:

"We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries." David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, in June, 1991

Note this quote from David Rockerfeller thanking the media and others for keeping silent about these clandestine plans to bring about the New World Order. Rockefeller is the Honorary Chairman, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

Now… put this together. I’ve just found out today that Huckabee is a Purpose Driven person who has used Rick Warren’s quote on his website as an endorsement…. Rick Warren is on the CFR… see where this is going?

Also, if you don’t understand what’s wrong with the whole Purpose Driven agenda, then please check out this online E-Book

http://www.inthenameofpurpose.org/page2.html
In The Name Of Purpose by Tamara Hartzell

[bball39]

I hope Huckabee wins in 2008!

[Adopted Son]

If only Ron Paul (unelectable) were not so cold to Israel, I might warm up to him. I do love his anti-abortion beliefs, I do appreciate his physical constraints attitudes (don't spend what you don't have/pay off your past). But some platitudes, which sound good because they are true, are not possible without dire consequences, (IE: return to the gold standard) This sounds "omni-solutional" until you realize that drastic of a monetary re-evaluation would be so disruptive, we could not continue any modicum of a seamless economy until the new standard stabilized. How long would that take? What would the rest of the world do while we were struggling? Too, too far out.