Filmer

What Keyes lacks in money he more than makes up in ego. I’ll give him that. He has never won an election in his life but that doesn’t stop him from from trying. It doesn’t matter if he’s never been close to winning an election in his life his camapaigns are usually embarassments that the GOP party brass disavow and there’s usually an FEC investigation that shorty follows. Like Harold Stassen. Keyes runs for public office because he can. He enjoys it. He makes money off of it. It defines who he is. So why stop? Who does it hurt if it hurts anyone at all? Brownback first and foremost because it cuts right into his potential voting base and to a lesser extent Hucakbee. Actually a Keyes run is kind of embarassing to Huckabee because you would think Huckabee to be successful would want to gather in all the religious conservatives into his flock and yet he cannot seem to do so. Maybe it’s the bass guitar. Brownback is pretty much toast anyway but if Keyes can cut into Huckabee’s potential vote it’s actually a plus for RP. Let ‘em duke it out for a narrow slice of the electorate. Does this hurt Ron Paul? No because I doubt if a Keyes voter is an RP voter to begin with. You’re talking about Pentacostals mostly fanatical types. When Keyes ran for the U. S. Senate in Illinois four years ago he ran on a platform of slave reparations bringing back the draft and keeping the Department of Agriculture. Not exactly an RP platform there. Oh and if Keyes is kept out of any futurre TV debates look for him to chain himself to the studio door and claim he’s being denied his rights because he’s black. He truly is the Republican Jesse Jackson. There was something interesting on Keyes’ website comparing his view to Paul. He state’s that (and paraphrasing) that Paul is too focused on the Constitution itself while Keyes takes a lot of his thinking from the Declaration of Independence. Like Emma Lazaras’ poem the Declaration has been given status of holy writ because it is a well written document yet it is only the Consitution that is the basis of law. Period. The reason Huckabee isn’t getting the overall White Evangelical vote is because Huckabee is for open borders and amnesty. There are a lot of White Evangelicals (actually most of them) that are for the rule of law including enforcing immigration law and sealing the border shut. There really isn’t a candidate other than Tancredo and maybe Hunter that hold the positions that White Evangelicals care about unfortunately White Evangelicals want to win and want to elect a candidate that can win and since the controlled mainstream media doesn’t give any attention to Tancredo or Hunter. White Evangelicals are ignoring them which is a shame when it comes to Tancredo. Hunter is a pro-war/pro-nation-building neocon when it comes to this issue but he’s great on the rest of the issues. As far as Alan Keyes goes: he will probably get the so called conservative/religious black vote (if there is such a thing) but that’s about it. I don’t think he will take votes away from any candidate. What kind of statement is that? Oh never mind. I know what kind it is an ignorant one made by somebody who has never been inside a Pentecostal church in their life. And to further prove your ignorance you misspelled Pentecostals. Before you start slamming other people’s religion perhaps you should take part in their services first. I’m not Pentecostal but I attend services at one their church’s every so often and your more then welcome to join me. That is if you can handle the “fanatics”. There is no such thing as “faith.” The important thing is “faith” in what. The Gospels and Epistles make it clear that differences in theology and liturgical practices really do matter. And theology and liturgy also influence how one acts in every day life and in the polling booth. Not all Pentecostals are fanatics. But a large number are fanatically pro-Zionist believe in the “end time” and the “rapture” as well as in other novel and weird “prophecies.” These beliefs usually are taken from the Jewish scriptures. Many of their beliefs such as “end time” and “rapture” are 100% contrary to the beliefs of orthodox Christians. The New Testament Gospels say Jesus taught that no human being can ever know anting about the end time. Well then you obviously would consider me a nut then seeing as how I believe in the end time and the rapture. Now I don’t believe in the rapture as displayed in the Left Behind Novels (which are great btw) but I believe it will happen after the 7 years of tribulation right before Jesus comes down. Think that’s weird? Tough. I think purgatory is weird and unbelievable. On another note go ahead and make fun of evangelicals at your own peril the fact is paleo-cons will never do a damn thing without them. And trust me there are many many paleo evangelicals out there even those “nutty” Pentecostals. I think part of this may be a nomenclature issue. I am not sure what Patroon meant by Pentecostals. Pentecostals are not just an extreme degree of evangelical. They have a certain unique set of beliefs. Pentecostals believe that the sign gifts mentioned in the New Testament are still extant today. Most evangelicals belong to denominations that believe those sign gifts passed away with the ending of the Apostolic Age. Charismatics also believe the gifts are available today and the distinction between Charismatic and Pentecostal can be confusing. Without getting into too much detail. Pentecostals see the sign gifts as normative. In fact they view them as a sign that a Christian has been “filled” with the Holy Spirit. So Christians should expect and seek out these gifts. They put particular emphasis on the gift of tongues. Pentecostals have generally been viewed skeptically by mainstream evangelicals. It is probably fair to describe Pentecostals as very broadly within the evangelical tent but they are a rather distinct sub-group. (The United Pentecostal Church [UPC] is anti-Trinitarian and considered heretical. They are often referred to as Oneness Pentecostals.) The Assemblies of God for example is probably more evangelicalesque than the Church of God. Now if the sign gifts really are available today then the rest of us are missing the boat. But if they aren’t then something else other than the Holy Spirit has to explain the phenomenon that one would see in a Pentecostal church. I think most non-Pentecostal conservative Christian scholars view it as a group psychological phenomenon. That is the benign explanation. The harsher explanation is that a lot of people are just faking it. But I tend to agree with Jan that Pentecostalism probably attracts a type of believer that is categorically different than many evangelicals. In many staid and uptight Baptist churches simply lifting your hands will earn you a rebuke. I am not singling out Pentacostals for criticism. I am simpling pointing who are Keyes’ biggest supporters within the GOP and many are “fanatical” in their support of him because he speaks in their idiom and fervor even though he is a Roman Catholic. Ron Paul has many fanatical supporters too. “Evangelicalism” is not a seperate religion per say it is merely a style of religion so no one is criticising being evangelical. What is being criticized is a doctrine of heresy known as “dispensationalism” that has been used to justify stupid U. S policies in the Middle East on thelological basis. This doctrine would be a part of the theological backwater if many misguided people did not believe it through best-selling dimestore paperback novels. B movies and government preachers who are a part of the GOP gravy train. Not only is this doctrine a heresy it’s downright dangerous and could trigger a wider Middle East war that will draw in the U. S more than it is right now and that’s saying something. If an evangelical wishes to be a paleo I have no problem with that. But it should be pointed out that many leading paleocons have religous backgrounds that are very conservative orthodox and hierarchial (Catholic. Orothdox. Establishment Protestant). Evanagelicalism is about reaching out. That is the essence to it. That is what makes Billy Graham. Billy Graham. It is about reaching out to those who are of the nominal faith or none at all and filling them were the fevor of the faith. Billy Graham and most evangelicals regardless of belief or background do not have doctrines and do not have hierarchies nor do they have traditional worship. Many evangelicals are turned off to such structured religions because of this. Some prefer learning about God in their mega-church others through the stain-glass windows. Fine. To each his own. But it seems to me and this is just my opinion that paleconservatism represents a more structured orderly patroon non-populist form of conservatism compared to the more populist evangelicalism. In other words trying to convert large numbers of evangelicals to paleoconservatism would be like pounding a square peg into a round hole. I was brought up Baptist and never attended any other church besides a Baptist church until I was 15. At that time my mom decided to leave the church we were currently attending a new preacher had come in people were getting pushed out etc. typical church politics. So my mom decided we would try a church she had attended when she was younger it was a Church of God. It didn’t matter to me much at that point in my life I was starting to rebel a little against religion. All I knew was that I had a couple of friends who went there so I was fine with it. Well we got there and everything was fine. People talking and shaking hands discussing trivial matters like the weather greeting me and my mom with smiles and welcomes. When the service began nothing was unusual for the first 5 minutes or so. Then suddenly people starting raising their hands in the air and waving them. This came as a shock to me seeing as how in all the Baptist churchs’ I had attended the most noteworthy thing to ever happen during a sermon was someone saying Amen. So the preacher was preaching hands were moving and then much to my shock people starting to shout out right in the middle of the sermon! Not only that but they weren’t making any sense. They certainly weren’t talking in any language I recognized and quite frankly I was scared to death. My mind was spinning and people started standing up getting in the ailse shouting things. I glanced over at my friends I knew from school and they were just sitting there acting as if nothing was going on. After the service on the way home I asked my mom what in the world happened in there. She then explained to me about speaking in tounges something I didn’t really buy at the time and still have trouble buying. I told her I wasn’t really thrilled about going back there and she told me we were just visiting that that wasn’t going to be our new church. I was thrilled. We eventually started going to a nice little non-denomanational chuch my mom went to when she growing up a church we both still attend to this day. Since then I have seen speaking in tounges some more and my take on it is this: I do think there is a small % of the people who just flat out fake it to fit in. But the vast majority I feel our genuine. Does it come from the Holy Ghost? I can’t say. I’ve always tended to feel it was a mental thing. I do believe that they believe it is the Holy Ghost and for that God love them. Who am I to say it’s not? It’s never been my thing and never will be but I am glad I have gotten to experience it. I’m glad I got to know some of the people who do it it has better shaped my knowledge of the whole thing. I am not trying to be overly critical here but have you ever been to an evangelical church? Your comment is the kind of broad brush that I think hurts paleoconservatism. Evangelicals are misguided on many things but the most basic divide in the battle against liberalism and modernity is between believers in the Old Faith and believers in nothing and their accomplices believers in the New Faith (liberal Christianity). Whatever you may say about evangelicals they are believers in the Old Faith. Evangelicals are not the enemy. They are misguided friends. We must try to show them the error of their ways. First of all dispensationalism is not a heresy. I know Catholics believe anything that disagrees with the Magisterium is heresy but evangelicals don’t believe that. Heresy implies something that challenges a fundamental aspect of the Faith (the Trinity the Virgin Birth the Resurrection etc.). That believing would place you outside what has historically been considered orthodox. Dispensationalism is broadly accepted in evangelical circles and it has sound scholarship and hermeneutics behind it. Believing it does not place you outside the bounds of historical orthodoxy and certainly does not jeopardize your soul. I do not know if dispensationalism is the correct interpretation of the Bible. I have thrown my hands up in the air and decided I don’t know. But it is NOT heresy. How does believing it invalidate any fundamental of the faith? How does believing it jeopardize your immortal soul? “This doctrine would be a part of the theological backwater if many misguided people did not believe it through best-selling dime store paperback novels. B movies and government preachers who are a part of the GOP gravy train.” It is the other way around. The widespread acceptance of dispensationalism and pre-millennialism made it possible for those things to prosper. Post mil lit movies etc would not prosper because it is not the dominant belief. That is primarily not true although there is a lot of emphasis on style these days. New Evangelicalism of which Billy Graham is the primary figure arose from Fundamentalism which was a reaction to liberal modernism. Evangelicalism is the less separatistic and more ecumenical spawn of Fundamentalism which had grown increasingly separatistic. Evangelicalism does have a doctrine and is in some respects quite militant about it. Evangelicalism is committed to the fundamentals of the Faith and what really unites it is the doctrine of sola fide. Now modern evangelicals often don’t talk about doctrine other than salvation may be squeamish of doctrine may view it as divisive etc. All these things are wrong. But if an evangelical pastor or leader came out against some fundamental or fundamentals of the faith he would be written out of the movement. Adherence to the fundamentals is a virtual defining characteristic of evangelicalism. “Billy Graham and most evangelicals regardless of belief or background do not have doctrines and do not have hierarchies nor do they have traditional worship. Many evangelicals are turned off to such structured religions because of this.” They do have doctrine and some have traditional worship. The battle over contemporary worship and traditional has been raging in evangelical circles for years. Of course traditional does not mean liturgical like the Catholic or Orthodox Church but it is structured and not some free-for-all. Opening music introduction hymn special music welcome visitors offering hymn sermon etc. That sort of thing. Re hierarchies. I think many evangelical churches are too hierarchal because of the single pastor system which I think is flawed. (Autocratic is probably a better word.) The point is not hierarchy for hierarchy’s sake. The point is to order the Church the way God shows us in the Bible it should be ordered. I am actually a primitivist or Brethrenesque on this. I actually think the New Testament shows no clergy laity distinction. That is a distinction of man. Whether there should be some extra-church authority over the local church or whether the local church should be independent is complicated. The New Testament does seem to indicate that the Apostles had authority over the local church. Whether that passed away with the Apostles is the question. I think a lot of paleoconservatives denounce evangelicalism based only on megachurches and what they see on TV. All evangelicals are not like that and even most megachurches get core doctrine right. (There is a lot of heresy on TBN but that is not mainstream evangelicalism.) I can say in good faith that sole fide is false. Therefore whether sole fide is taught in Scripture is absolutely not clear unless you approach Scripture with a set of pretexts. Simply you saying it is clear does not make it so. Unless that is you are willing to attribute bad faith shear stupidity or insanity to Catholics and Orthodox. Please understand your interpretation of Scripture nor mine for that matter is itself Scripture. The verses you quoted on socteriology are hardly all Scripture has to say on the matter. The Catholic Church has always condemned Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism. Which in a nutshell is that you can earn your way to Heaven by good works. For Catholics authority is threefold. There is Scripture. Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium. They are all interdependent and necessary. Scripture does not need further elaboration. But among the three only Scripture is inspired. All three however are binding. Sacred Tradition are those teachings that were handed down from the Apostles that were not placed in Scripture. The primary source being the Church Fathers. The idea being that the nearer the spring the purer the water. The earlier fathers are typically given greater weight. This period lasted in the West for a little over six hundred years. Of course some of the Fathes had heterodox opinions but a great consenses did arise and continues. The Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. It is the authority of the Pope and the Bishops united to him. As to making things up that is a common charge but that doesn’t make it true. There is in the Church the idea of the Development of Doctrine. That as time passes a fuller understanding is reached that does not contradict earlier understanding but only deepens it. As to making stuff up you should look to yourself. No one heard of the ideas of Dispensationalism until around the 1840’s or so. Then there is the idea that you can divorce and remarry as often as you want. Or how about contraception no Christian accepted contraception until the Lambeth conference in the 1920’s. As to divorce and contraception if you say those prohibition weren’t clearly in Scripture I’ll be very disappointed because the reformers thought so. As to Dispensationalism again I’ll be very disappointed if you say it’s clearly there in Thessolonians when that book has always been in the Bible and no one saw it for over 1700 years. Without an authority beyond the individual than an individual’s understanding of God through Scripture is subjective. Although certainly a person’s relationship with God is personal though not exclusively so since he would also be part of the Church it certainly isn’t subjective. You can’t worship God on your own terms at least not fully. I will repeat what I said in a thread above. Jesus saved his worst condemnation for the Pharisees because they elevated the vain teachings of man to be equal with Holy Scripture. Catholics cling to a form of Christianity that is Pharisaical. Biblically minded Protestants are trying to recapture the Christianity of the New Testament. What Fundamentalist says divorce and remarriage is OK? Name me one? If they did they would be booted out of Fundamentalism by definition. Fundamentalist generally believe the Bible is silent on birth control. I actually think that Catholics are correct here and there is a minority of Fundamentalists who agree. Dispensationalism is based primarily on what the Bible does not say. It does not say that the Church replaced Israel in prophesy or that the promises made to Israel are now invalid. Catholics advanced “replacement theology.” Dispensationalists disagree because nowhere does the Bible say that. If God is true to His word and there are prophesies to Israel that have yet to be fulfilled then they must be going to be fulfilled in the future. Filmer you’re are correct in saying that dispensationa ideas had already been swirling around in fundamentalist and Pentacostalist circles since the late 1800s so such ideas like dispensationalism were already well established before the Hal Lindsey’s and Tim LaHaye’s of the world simply made them popular to a broader audience than Bible scholars. My apologies for being incorrect on that point. I’ve never been to an evangelical church nor am I a theologian so I’m not going to argue about doctrine and sound foolish. Obviously I take a lot from Chronicles’ writers in terms of their critiques of evangelicalism and Dispensationalism as you can obviously tell. Suffice to say Catholics have trying to guard their faith against movments and fads and other doctrines that would warp such faith. Christopher Check pointed out in a recent Chronicles piece that Pope Leo XIII considered “Americanism” itself i e the doctrines of individualism and exceptionalism to be heresies and that’s why many Catholics feel the same way about Dispensationalism. Besides that. Dispensationalism believes or at least the way Darby viewed it that salvation lies through the restoration of Israel and not simply through Christ’s return as Catholics and most Christians believe. Because of this some Dispensationalists believe that the restoration of Israel means the old Solomonic Empire which means Israel should invade and grab territory in Lebanon. Syria and Jordan. Other Dispensationalists believe such a restoration can come through the restoration of the old Temple which means blowing up the Dome of the Rock and causing all-out religious war. Such Dispensationalists believe Israel such not give up any territory for peace. Such dispensationalsist believe that Iraq and Iran must be destroyed in other to “protect” Israel. That’s where you get the perversity know as “Christian Zionism” and sadly such views are very influential not just among rank n’ file Evangelicals but also influential in the White House itself which is what makes them dangerous. Do we not forget than many of our Christian brothers are Arabs or is it because they are Orthodox and Catholic that they are forgotten? Like they are in Iraq and left to the tender mercies of the Islamists. It is because such ideas are popular among evangelicals that Pat Buchanan could not win the GOP nomination because he supposedly “cursed Israel.” This what made for Alan Keyes’ candidacy (or least made it popular enough to siphon off votes from Buchanan) and Gary Bauer’s too. Is that a partisan ax that I’m grinding? Perhaps it is but at least I’m honest in saying that’s why many Brigaders do not like Mr. Keyes very much and were dismayed by the lack of stong evangelical support for a candidate that was very much in line with their views. Again this is just my opinion Filmer but I think you tend to mistake Fundamentalism with Evangelicalism. You could theoretically build a broader paleo movement among fundemantalists but not among Evangelicals. As I said. Evangelicalism is a style and fervor more than it is a set religion or set religious beliefs. Pentacostalism started out as a style too that ultimately became its own religion because the fundamentalists and other mainline churches would have nothing to do with them. Evangelicals run the gamut from left to right (Bill Clinton for example hung around with many Evangelical preachers of the left like Philip Wagomon during the Lewinsky scandal) and it is the religion most influenced and directed by modernity. Yes the Christian left is influenced by modernity too but they wish to turn their churches in social clubs hootenannies and coffee houses. Since such pandering hasn’t done much for numbers in their pews they can be ignored because they’re not very influential even amongst the left because it is mostly securalist. Now even us as young paleos are touched by modernity like it or not so I’m not singling out Evangelical per say. But it’s with Evangelical churches that you’re going to find the worship services with rock music the mega-churches with their coffee bars and work-out gyms and mission statements and the structure based along corporate lines. This is Chronicles’ biggest complaint against evangelicals that they blow the prevailing winds. Once the wind blew in favor of activism against abortion and electing GOP candidates now it blows in favor of environmentalism and global warming and Barak Obama. Evangelicals know how to read polls. It was evangelical churches that were heavily in favor of the war when it was popular. Now no one talks about it. You can’t build a foundation on a house of sand as Christ would say. Such a movement as you envision. I don’t think would come pass. Even David Frum said the same thing in Dead Right (something he stole from Chronicles no doubt): “American spiritual life does not stand apart from as a witness to or a refuge from the excesses in American popular culture. It fully participates in that culture. It receives its ideas from that culture and is decisvely shaped by that culture. “ Fightin’ Fundie all of your condemnation of Catholics or Catholic teachings are based on your interpretation of Scripture. Again your interpretation of Scripture is not itself Scripture. As of yet you have not demonstrated that Scripture is not susceptible to internally coherent but mutually exclusive interpretations. God did not abandon us to our own understanding of His word. Fundamentalist rightly want to worship as the New Testament and ancient Church did. But I have to ask you have you read any of the teachings of the Church Fathers it could be illuminating. As to which Fundamentalist allow divorce and remarriage instead of my attempting to nail jello to the wall why don’t you tell me what different traditions or communities in your estimation are fundamentalist. I’m glad that you agree perhaps for different reasons or perhaps not with Catholics on contraception. But does it not give you pause that most Fundamentalist using the same Bible disagree with you? Harold your argument is one of infinite regress. You say there must be a final earthly authority to appeal to for the interpretation of Scripture. (Of course that is nowhere in the Bible.) And I am sure you have in mind a particular Institution to do just that. How convenient. But how do we know the Catholic Church is that authority? Your argument is not falsifiable and is merely a matter of faith. Fine ultimately so is mine. I am suggesting that the Catholic Church proved it can not be that authority because it botched up something so essential and as clear as sola fide and added things that were outrageous. If the Catholic Church is a coequal source of Revelation to the Scriptures then it can’t have a Revelation that contradicts the Scripture. Then you become like a Mormon. Oh we believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God except where it contradicts the Book of Mormon. But ultimately nothing demands that there be a final Earthly authority for the interpretation of Scripture. In fact it could be argued that such a thing would be dangerous. If they got it wrong we would all be bound to their false interpretation. Nice bob and weave there by the way. The Bible makes certain promises to Israel. All of those promises have not been fulfilled. Therefore they must remain to be fulfilled in the future. The Bible does not say those promises have been invalidated because the Jews rejected Jesus. It does not say those promises will be fulfilled through the Church instead. Both of those things are assumptions. Dispensationalism is an assumption free consistently literal hermeneutic. Fightin’ Fundie you understand that whenever you say “the Bible says” I’m hearing “I interprete the Bible to say”. Further if my argument is one of ‘infinite regress’ then yours is one of complete subjectivity. You admit no authority other than yourself. You may claim Scripture as your ultimate authority but in truth it is only Scripture as you interpret it. Which again your interpretation of Scripture IS NOT ITSELF SCRIPTURE. You seem oblivious to the fact that widespread disagreement on soteriology is irrefutable proof that Scripture is not clear on the subject. It only appears clear if you approach Scripture from a set of pretexts (traditions). A quandary that you can’t admit because it violates Sola Scriptura. As to bobbing and weaving you were the one who said that dispensationalism comes from what the Bible doesn’t say. Further it is hardly assumption free and being a consistently literal hermeneutic hardly makes it true. Assumption number one is that the Church was not grafted onto the stem of Israel. Nice strawman argument by the way. The Catholic Church’s teachings do not contradict Scripture. They certainly contradict your interpretation of Scripture which evidently you believe to be the same thing. The Catholic Church is NOT a co-equal source of revelation. I did not claim such a thing. If I did I mispoke. It does have binding authority. An authority that can’t contradict Scripture or Sacred Tradition.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://conservativetimes.org/?p=1123

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

What Keyes lacks in money he more than makes up in ego. I’ll give him that. He has never won an election in his life but that doesn’t stop him from from trying. It doesn’t matter if he’s never been close to winning an election in his life his camapaigns are usually embarassments that the GOP party brass disavow and there’s usually an FEC investigation that shorty follows. Like Harold Stassen. Keyes runs for public office because he can. He enjoys it. He makes money off of it. It defines who he is. So why stop? Who does it hurt if it hurts anyone at all? Brownback first and foremost because it cuts right into his potential voting base and to a lesser extent Hucakbee. Actually a Keyes run is kind of embarassing to Huckabee because you would think Huckabee to be successful would want to gather in all the religious conservatives into his flock and yet he cannot seem to do so. Maybe it’s the bass guitar. Brownback is pretty much toast anyway but if Keyes can cut into Huckabee’s potential vote it’s actually a plus for RP. Let ‘em duke it out for a narrow slice of the electorate. Does this hurt Ron Paul? No because I doubt if a Keyes voter is an RP voter to begin with. You’re talking about Pentacostals mostly fanatical types. When Keyes ran for the U. S. Senate in Illinois four years ago he ran on a platform of slave reparations bringing back the draft and keeping the Department of Agriculture. Not exactly an RP platform there. Oh and if Keyes is kept out of any futurre TV debates look for him to chain himself to the studio door and claim he’s being denied his rights because he’s black. He truly is the Republican Jesse Jackson. There was something interesting on Keyes’ website comparing his view to Paul. He state’s that (and paraphrasing) that Paul is too focused on the Constitution itself while Keyes takes a lot of his thinking from the Declaration of Independence. Like Emma Lazaras’ poem the Declaration has been given status of holy writ because it is a well written document yet it is only the Consitution that is the basis of law. Period. The reason Huckabee isn’t getting the overall White Evangelical vote is because Huckabee is for open borders and amnesty. There are a lot of White Evangelicals (actually most of them) that are for the rule of law including enforcing immigration law and sealing the border shut. There really isn’t a candidate other than Tancredo and maybe Hunter that hold the positions that White Evangelicals care about unfortunately White Evangelicals want to win and want to elect a candidate that can win and since the controlled mainstream media doesn’t give any attention to Tancredo or Hunter. White Evangelicals are ignoring them which is a shame when it comes to Tancredo. Hunter is a pro-war/pro-nation-building neocon when it comes to this issue but he’s great on the rest of the issues. As far as Alan Keyes goes: he will probably get the so called conservative/religious black vote (if there is such a thing) but that’s about it. I don’t think he will take votes away from any candidate. What kind of statement is that? Oh never mind. I know what kind it is an ignorant one made by somebody who has never been inside a Pentecostal church in their life. And to further prove your ignorance you misspelled Pentecostals. Before you start slamming other people’s religion perhaps you should take part in their services first. I’m not Pentecostal but I attend services at one their church’s every so often and your more then welcome to join me. That is if you can handle the “fanatics”. There is no such thing as “faith.” The important thing is “faith” in what. The Gospels and Epistles make it clear that differences in theology and liturgical practices really do matter. And theology and liturgy also influence how one acts in every day life and in the polling booth. Not all Pentecostals are fanatics. But a large number are fanatically pro-Zionist believe in the “end time” and the “rapture” as well as in other novel and weird “prophecies.” These beliefs usually are taken from the Jewish scriptures. Many of their beliefs such as “end time” and “rapture” are 100% contrary to the beliefs of orthodox Christians. The New Testament Gospels say Jesus taught that no human being can ever know anting about the end time. Well then you obviously would consider me a nut then seeing as how I believe in the end time and the rapture. Now I don’t believe in the rapture as displayed in the Left Behind Novels (which are great btw) but I believe it will happen after the 7 years of tribulation right before Jesus comes down. Think that’s weird? Tough. I think purgatory is weird and unbelievable. On another note go ahead and make fun of evangelicals at your own peril the fact is paleo-cons will never do a damn thing without them. And trust me there are many many paleo evangelicals out there even those “nutty” Pentecostals. I think part of this may be a nomenclature issue. I am not sure what Patroon meant by Pentecostals. Pentecostals are not just an extreme degree of evangelical. They have a certain unique set of beliefs. Pentecostals believe that the sign gifts mentioned in the New Testament are still extant today. Most evangelicals belong to denominations that believe those sign gifts passed away with the ending of the Apostolic Age. Charismatics also believe the gifts are available today and the distinction between Charismatic and Pentecostal can be confusing. Without getting into too much detail. Pentecostals see the sign gifts as normative. In fact they view them as a sign that a Christian has been “filled” with the Holy Spirit. So Christians should expect and seek out these gifts. They put particular emphasis on the gift of tongues. Pentecostals have generally been viewed skeptically by mainstream evangelicals. It is probably fair to describe Pentecostals as very broadly within the evangelical tent but they are a rather distinct sub-group. (The United Pentecostal Church [UPC] is anti-Trinitarian and considered heretical. They are often referred to as Oneness Pentecostals.) The Assemblies of God for example is probably more evangelicalesque than the Church of God. Now if the sign gifts really are available today then the rest of us are missing the boat. But if they aren’t then something else other than the Holy Spirit has to explain the phenomenon that one would see in a Pentecostal church. I think most non-Pentecostal conservative Christian scholars view it as a group psychological phenomenon. That is the benign explanation. The harsher explanation is that a lot of people are just faking it. But I tend to agree with Jan that Pentecostalism probably attracts a type of believer that is categorically different than many evangelicals. In many staid and uptight Baptist churches simply lifting your hands will earn you a rebuke. I am not singling out Pentacostals for criticism. I am simpling pointing who are Keyes’ biggest supporters within the GOP and many are “fanatical” in their support of him because he speaks in their idiom and fervor even though he is a Roman Catholic. Ron Paul has many fanatical supporters too. “Evangelicalism” is not a seperate religion per say it is merely a style of religion so no one is criticising being evangelical. What is being criticized is a doctrine of heresy known as “dispensationalism” that has been used to justify stupid U. S policies in the Middle East on thelological basis. This doctrine would be a part of the theological backwater if many misguided people did not believe it through best-selling dimestore paperback novels. B movies and government preachers who are a part of the GOP gravy train. Not only is this doctrine a heresy it’s downright dangerous and could trigger a wider Middle East war that will draw in the U. S more than it is right now and that’s saying something. If an evangelical wishes to be a paleo I have no problem with that. But it should be pointed out that many leading paleocons have religous backgrounds that are very conservative orthodox and hierarchial (Catholic. Orothdox. Establishment Protestant). Evanagelicalism is about reaching out. That is the essence to it. That is what makes Billy Graham. Billy Graham. It is about reaching out to those who are of the nominal faith or none at all and filling them were the fevor of the faith. Billy Graham and most evangelicals regardless of belief or background do not have doctrines and do not have hierarchies nor do they have traditional worship. Many evangelicals are turned off to such structured religions because of this. Some prefer learning about God in their mega-church others through the stain-glass windows. Fine. To each his own. But it seems to me and this is just my opinion that paleconservatism represents a more structured orderly patroon non-populist form of conservatism compared to the more populist evangelicalism. In other words trying to convert large numbers of evangelicals to paleoconservatism would be like pounding a square peg into a round hole. I was brought up Baptist and never attended any other church besides a Baptist church until I was 15. At that time my mom decided to leave the church we were currently attending a new preacher had come in people were getting pushed out etc. typical church politics. So my mom decided we would try a church she had attended when she was younger it was a Church of God. It didn’t matter to me much at that point in my life I was starting to rebel a little against religion. All I knew was that I had a couple of friends who went there so I was fine with it. Well we got there and everything was fine. People talking and shaking hands discussing trivial matters like the weather greeting me and my mom with smiles and welcomes. When the service began nothing was unusual for the first 5 minutes or so. Then suddenly people starting raising their hands in the air and waving them. This came as a shock to me seeing as how in all the Baptist churchs’ I had attended the most noteworthy thing to ever happen during a sermon was someone saying Amen. So the preacher was preaching hands were moving and then much to my shock people starting to shout out right in the middle of the sermon! Not only that but they weren’t making any sense. They certainly weren’t talking in any language I recognized and quite frankly I was scared to death. My mind was spinning and people started standing up getting in the ailse shouting things. I glanced over at my friends I knew from school and they were just sitting there acting as if nothing was going on. After the service on the way home I asked my mom what in the world happened in there. She then explained to me about speaking in tounges something I didn’t really buy at the time and still have trouble buying. I told her I wasn’t really thrilled about going back there and she told me we were just visiting that that wasn’t going to be our new church. I was thrilled. We eventually started going to a nice little non-denomanational chuch my mom went to when she growing up a church we both still attend to this day. Since then I have seen speaking in tounges some more and my take on it is this: I do think there is a small % of the people who just flat out fake it to fit in. But the vast majority I feel our genuine. Does it come from the Holy Ghost? I can’t say. I’ve always tended to feel it was a mental thing. I do believe that they believe it is the Holy Ghost and for that God love them. Who am I to say it’s not? It’s never been my thing and never will be but I am glad I have gotten to experience it. I’m glad I got to know some of the people who do it it has better shaped my knowledge of the whole thing. I am not trying to be overly critical here but have you ever been to an evangelical church? Your comment is the kind of broad brush that I think hurts paleoconservatism. Evangelicals are misguided on many things but the most basic divide in the battle against liberalism and modernity is between believers in the Old Faith and believers in nothing and their accomplices believers in the New Faith (liberal Christianity). Whatever you may say about evangelicals they are believers in the Old Faith. Evangelicals are not the enemy. They are misguided friends. We must try to show them the error of their ways. First of all dispensationalism is not a heresy. I know Catholics believe anything that disagrees with the Magisterium is heresy but evangelicals don’t believe that. Heresy implies something that challenges a fundamental aspect of the Faith (the Trinity the Virgin Birth the Resurrection etc.). That believing would place you outside what has historically been considered orthodox. Dispensationalism is broadly accepted in evangelical circles and it has sound scholarship and hermeneutics behind it. Believing it does not place you outside the bounds of historical orthodoxy and certainly does not jeopardize your soul. I do not know if dispensationalism is the correct interpretation of the Bible. I have thrown my hands up in the air and decided I don’t know. But it is NOT heresy. How does believing it invalidate any fundamental of the faith? How does believing it jeopardize your immortal soul? “This doctrine would be a part of the theological backwater if many misguided people did not believe it through best-selling dime store paperback novels. B movies and government preachers who are a part of the GOP gravy train.” It is the other way around. The widespread acceptance of dispensationalism and pre-millennialism made it possible for those things to prosper. Post mil lit movies etc would not prosper because it is not the dominant belief. That is primarily not true although there is a lot of emphasis on style these days. New Evangelicalism of which Billy Graham is the primary figure arose from Fundamentalism which was a reaction to liberal modernism. Evangelicalism is the less separatistic and more ecumenical spawn of Fundamentalism which had grown increasingly separatistic. Evangelicalism does have a doctrine and is in some respects quite militant about it. Evangelicalism is committed to the fundamentals of the Faith and what really unites it is the doctrine of sola fide. Now modern evangelicals often don’t talk about doctrine other than salvation may be squeamish of doctrine may view it as divisive etc. All these things are wrong. But if an evangelical pastor or leader came out against some fundamental or fundamentals of the faith he would be written out of the movement. Adherence to the fundamentals is a virtual defining characteristic of evangelicalism. “Billy Graham and most evangelicals regardless of belief or background do not have doctrines and do not have hierarchies nor do they have traditional worship. Many evangelicals are turned off to such structured religions because of this.” They do have doctrine and some have traditional worship. The battle over contemporary worship and traditional has been raging in evangelical circles for years. Of course traditional does not mean liturgical like the Catholic or Orthodox Church but it is structured and not some free-for-all. Opening music introduction hymn special music welcome visitors offering hymn sermon etc. That sort of thing. Re hierarchies. I think many evangelical churches are too hierarchal because of the single pastor system which I think is flawed. (Autocratic is probably a better word.) The point is not hierarchy for hierarchy’s sake. The point is to order the Church the way God shows us in the Bible it should be ordered. I am actually a primitivist or Brethrenesque on this. I actually think the New Testament shows no clergy laity distinction. That is a distinction of man. Whether there should be some extra-church authority over the local church or whether the local church should be independent is complicated. The New Testament does seem to indicate that the Apostles had authority over the local church. Whether that passed away with the Apostles is the question. I think a lot of paleoconservatives denounce evangelicalism based only on megachurches and what they see on TV. All evangelicals are not like that and even most megachurches get core doctrine right. (There is a lot of heresy on TBN but that is not mainstream evangelicalism.) I can say in good faith that sole fide is false. Therefore whether sole fide is taught in Scripture is absolutely not clear unless you approach Scripture with a set of pretexts. Simply you saying it is clear does not make it so. Unless that is you are willing to attribute bad faith shear stupidity or insanity to Catholics and Orthodox. Please understand your interpretation of Scripture nor mine for that matter is itself Scripture. The verses you quoted on socteriology are hardly all Scripture has to say on the matter. The Catholic Church has always condemned Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism. Which in a nutshell is that you can earn your way to Heaven by good works. For Catholics authority is threefold. There is Scripture. Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium. They are all interdependent and necessary. Scripture does not need further elaboration. But among the three only Scripture is inspired. All three however are binding. Sacred Tradition are those teachings that were handed down from the Apostles that were not placed in Scripture. The primary source being the Church Fathers. The idea being that the nearer the spring the purer the water. The earlier fathers are typically given greater weight. This period lasted in the West for a little over six hundred years. Of course some of the Fathes had heterodox opinions but a great consenses did arise and continues. The Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. It is the authority of the Pope and the Bishops united to him. As to making things up that is a common charge but that doesn’t make it true. There is in the Church the idea of the Development of Doctrine. That as time passes a fuller understanding is reached that does not contradict earlier understanding but only deepens it. As to making stuff up you should look to yourself. No one heard of the ideas of Dispensationalism until around the 1840’s or so. Then there is the idea that you can divorce and remarry as often as you want. Or how about contraception no Christian accepted contraception until the Lambeth conference in the 1920’s. As to divorce and contraception if you say those prohibition weren’t clearly in Scripture I’ll be very disappointed because the reformers thought so. As to Dispensationalism again I’ll be very disappointed if you say it’s clearly there in Thessolonians when that book has always been in the Bible and no one saw it for over 1700 years. Without an authority beyond the individual than an individual’s understanding of God through Scripture is subjective. Although certainly a person’s relationship with God is personal though not exclusively so since he would also be part of the Church it certainly isn’t subjective. You can’t worship God on your own terms at least not fully. I will repeat what I said in a thread above. Jesus saved his worst condemnation for the Pharisees because they elevated the vain teachings of man to be equal with Holy Scripture. Catholics cling to a form of Christianity that is Pharisaical. Biblically minded Protestants are trying to recapture the Christianity of the New Testament. What Fundamentalist says divorce and remarriage is OK? Name me one? If they did they would be booted out of Fundamentalism by definition. Fundamentalist generally believe the Bible is silent on birth control. I actually think that Catholics are correct here and there is a minority of Fundamentalists who agree. Dispensationalism is based primarily on what the Bible does not say. It does not say that the Church replaced Israel in prophesy or that the promises made to Israel are now invalid. Catholics advanced “replacement theology.” Dispensationalists disagree because nowhere does the Bible say that. If God is true to His word and there are prophesies to Israel that have yet to be fulfilled then they must be going to be fulfilled in the future. Filmer you’re are correct in saying that dispensationa ideas had already been swirling around in fundamentalist and Pentacostalist circles since the late 1800s so such ideas like dispensationalism were already well established before the Hal Lindsey’s and Tim LaHaye’s of the world simply made them popular to a broader audience than Bible scholars. My apologies for being incorrect on that point. I’ve never been to an evangelical church nor am I a theologian so I’m not going to argue about doctrine and sound foolish. Obviously I take a lot from Chronicles’ writers in terms of their critiques of evangelicalism and Dispensationalism as you can obviously tell. Suffice to say Catholics have trying to guard their faith against movments and fads and other doctrines that would warp such faith. Christopher Check pointed out in a recent Chronicles piece that Pope Leo XIII considered “Americanism” itself i e the doctrines of individualism and exceptionalism to be heresies and that’s why many Catholics feel the same way about Dispensationalism. Besides that. Dispensationalism believes or at least the way Darby viewed it that salvation lies through the restoration of Israel and not simply through Christ’s return as Catholics and most Christians believe. Because of this some Dispensationalists believe that the restoration of Israel means the old Solomonic Empire which means Israel should invade and grab territory in Lebanon. Syria and Jordan. Other Dispensationalists believe such a restoration can come through the restoration of the old Temple which means blowing up the Dome of the Rock and causing all-out religious war. Such Dispensationalists believe Israel such not give up any territory for peace. Such dispensationalsist believe that Iraq and Iran must be destroyed in other to “protect” Israel. That’s where you get the perversity know as “Christian Zionism” and sadly such views are very influential not just among rank n’ file Evangelicals but also influential in the White House itself which is what makes them dangerous. Do we not forget than many of our Christian brothers are Arabs or is it because they are Orthodox and Catholic that they are forgotten? Like they are in Iraq and left to the tender mercies of the Islamists. It is because such ideas are popular among evangelicals that Pat Buchanan could not win the GOP nomination because he supposedly “cursed Israel.” This what made for Alan Keyes’ candidacy (or least made it popular enough to siphon off votes from Buchanan) and Gary Bauer’s too. Is that a partisan ax that I’m grinding? Perhaps it is but at least I’m honest in saying that’s why many Brigaders do not like Mr. Keyes very much and were dismayed by the lack of stong evangelical support for a candidate that was very much in line with their views. Again this is just my opinion Filmer but I think you tend to mistake Fundamentalism with Evangelicalism. You could theoretically build a broader paleo movement among fundemantalists but not among Evangelicals. As I said. Evangelicalism is a style and fervor more than it is a set religion or set religious beliefs. Pentacostalism started out as a style too that ultimately became its own religion because the fundamentalists and other mainline churches would have nothing to do with them. Evangelicals run the gamut from left to right (Bill Clinton for example hung around with many Evangelical preachers of the left like Philip Wagomon during the Lewinsky scandal) and it is the religion most influenced and directed by modernity. Yes the Christian left is influenced by modernity too but they wish to turn their churches in social clubs hootenannies and coffee houses. Since such pandering hasn’t done much for numbers in their pews they can be ignored because they’re not very influential even amongst the left because it is mostly securalist. Now even us as young paleos are touched by modernity like it or not so I’m not singling out Evangelical per say. But it’s with Evangelical churches that you’re going to find the worship services with rock music the mega-churches with their coffee bars and work-out gyms and mission statements and the structure based along corporate lines. This is Chronicles’ biggest complaint against evangelicals that they blow the prevailing winds. Once the wind blew in favor of activism against abortion and electing GOP candidates now it blows in favor of environmentalism and global warming and Barak Obama. Evangelicals know how to read polls. It was evangelical churches that were heavily in favor of the war when it was popular. Now no one talks about it. You can’t build a foundation on a house of sand as Christ would say. Such a movement as you envision. I don’t think would come pass. Even David Frum said the same thing in Dead Right (something he stole from Chronicles no doubt): “American spiritual life does not stand apart from as a witness to or a refuge from the excesses in American popular culture. It fully participates in that culture. It receives its ideas from that culture and is decisvely shaped by that culture. “ Fightin’ Fundie all of your condemnation of Catholics or Catholic teachings are based on your interpretation of Scripture. Again your interpretation of Scripture is not itself Scripture. As of yet you have not demonstrated that Scripture is not susceptible to internally coherent but mutually exclusive interpretations. God did not abandon us to our own understanding of His word. Fundamentalist rightly want to worship as the New Testament and ancient Church did. But I have to ask you have you read any of the teachings of the Church Fathers it could be illuminating. As to which Fundamentalist allow divorce and remarriage instead of my attempting to nail jello to the wall why don’t you tell me what different traditions or communities in your estimation are fundamentalist. I’m glad that you agree perhaps for different reasons or perhaps not with Catholics on contraception. But does it not give you pause that most Fundamentalist using the same Bible disagree with you? Harold your argument is one of infinite regress. You say there must be a final earthly authority to appeal to for the interpretation of Scripture. (Of course that is nowhere in the Bible.) And I am sure you have in mind a particular Institution to do just that. How convenient. But how do we know the Catholic Church is that authority? Your argument is not falsifiable and is merely a matter of faith. Fine ultimately so is mine. I am suggesting that the Catholic Church proved it can not be that authority because it botched up something so essential and as clear as sola fide and added things that were outrageous. If the Catholic Church is a coequal source of Revelation to the Scriptures then it can’t have a Revelation that contradicts the Scripture. Then you become like a Mormon. Oh we believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God except where it contradicts the Book of Mormon. But ultimately nothing demands that there be a final Earthly authority for the interpretation of Scripture. In fact it could be argued that such a thing would be dangerous. If they got it wrong we would all be bound to their false interpretation. Nice bob and weave there by the way. The Bible makes certain promises to Israel. All of those promises have not been fulfilled. Therefore they must remain to be fulfilled in the future. The Bible does not say those promises have been invalidated because the Jews rejected Jesus. It does not say those promises will be fulfilled through the Church instead. Both of those things are assumptions. Dispensationalism is an assumption free consistently literal hermeneutic. Fightin’ Fundie you understand that whenever you say “the Bible says” I’m hearing “I interprete the Bible to say”. Further if my argument is one of ‘infinite regress’ then yours is one of complete subjectivity. You admit no authority other than yourself. You may claim Scripture as your ultimate authority but in truth it is only Scripture as you interpret it. Which again your interpretation of Scripture IS NOT ITSELF SCRIPTURE. You seem oblivious to the fact that widespread disagreement on soteriology is irrefutable proof that Scripture is not clear on the subject. It only appears clear if you approach Scripture from a set of pretexts (traditions). A quandary that you can’t admit because it violates Sola Scriptura. As to bobbing and weaving you were the one who said that dispensationalism comes from what the Bible doesn’t say. Further it is hardly assumption free and being a consistently literal hermeneutic hardly makes it true. Assumption number one is that the Church was not grafted onto the stem of Israel. Nice strawman argument by the way. The Catholic Church’s teachings do not contradict Scripture. They certainly contradict your interpretation of Scripture which evidently you believe to be the same thing. The Catholic Church is NOT a co-equal source of revelation. I did not claim such a thing. If I did I mispoke. It does have binding authority. An authority that can’t contradict Scripture or Sacred Tradition.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://conservativetimes.org/?p=1123

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

All the mainstream media is controled by the zionists. Of course they don’t desire Paul nor do they like Tancredo. The media basically chooses a small assort of candidates that fit their agenda and they try to force it down our throats and have been sucessful. I didn’t check the debate but I saw Tancredo with only 2% of the choose on who won the consider what a compel. ‘”The alter winners were Giuliani. Romney and Huckabee in that request. Ron Paul is a very poor forgive for a Republican and should run with the other idiots on the Democrat align.” — Mr. & Mrs. Payton (Florence. OR)’ Blah!!! change surface the propensity of these morons saying Paul is a “poor excuse for a Republican” (when Paul is the only one there that is a Constitutionalist and true adherent of a republic) or the audacity of comparing Paul to the pseudo-Marxist democrats (when Paul is the only one there that is a true supporter of capitalism) is enough to make any paleo’ reach for the egest bag. Amazing that Hannity can get away with biting the transfer that feeds him. You can’t e-mail a text poll. It’s not Ron Paul’s fault half the Republican celebrate is so old it doesn’t know what texting is. be if Fox doesn’t like the outcome of its after-debate polls here’s a thought don’t have them! I’m suprised they had one after the measure debate they had. I thought Paul was more forceful in stating his position and hope they act attacking him. Let the consider be about him believe me it going to back up him in the desire run. We open out today that Huckabee is basically a fascist. Ein Volk. Ein Reich Ein Furhe. That’s about the same as “Unted States under God.” No sir this is not my war I’m not going to rest by while idiot captain of the ship runs us into an iceberg. You regenerate the head and change cover. Although I agree that military service is good for many people the comment about Hannity is uncalled for almost unpatriotic. Marc. Let’s dissect his irrational policies and the entire “Project for a New American Century” mentality with the sharpest intellect and get the low blows out of the affect. Why should Marc be chastised for speaking the truth. Andrew. Every man under up to the age of 42 who can beat the desk and in Sean’s case run his mouth on the radio and television about how “great American” he should have already enlisted. Why do you make excuses for these Chicken Hawk’s. Andrew? I tell every one of them off every come about I get! My son served his five years in the Marine Corps and he tells me “give them hell Mom!” And that is what I do. Military function is good for everyone that opens his big fat communicate and supports it! I have emailed Sean so many times in the last six monthst asking him when he is going to enlist. I evaluate Ann Coulter should go over to Iraq and direct traffic in Bagdad too or answer food in the mess hall or perhaps alter the latrines (that would be a super book job for her). And Sean could be in charge of running the laundry room that would be a good job for him. Gee he might get his manicured finger nails dirty. Tsk Tsk too bad. Good Morning.. First. I like the evince ‘chagrin’..! Second if Ann Coulter DID serve. I can pledge she would really apply ‘latrine’ duty in thesands outside Kuwait..(it is pretty much policy to leave the girls out of thedoor to door cram) as it is almost policy for women to be singled out for this duty- no offense toward women in the military but that duty seems to displace quite a few home… btw if you’ve ever had to drag twenty 55 gal drums (cut in half) full of… FOX news … out and burn the contentswith deisel (and keeping it stirred up) I am certain Coulter would indeed undergo a new consider for ‘our men and women in uniform. As to the debacle last night. I sure wish the rank and file got an eye and ear full measure night. The so-called top tier assort has waffled and reversed themselves so much. I wouldn’t accept them about anything. seriously. I wouldn’t buy a car from Guliani or Romney…McCain is just scarey (he reminds me of Romney with a DD-214) but how about Ron Paul. same today same as yesterday same tommorrow- Refreshing indeed. and ALL that in the face of being ATTACKED on his stance.. I guess Huckabee was a teenager who never got in trouble. His parents probably never told him ‘well if your friend jumped off a cliff would you jump too’. Every war that the US has ever gotten into encountered opposition on the home front. Myself I got disgusted that Paul had not been asked one challenge until over 30 minutes of the debate had taken place. He did come up. That consider as all about Ron Paul!! Everyone was having to act to him and what his positions were. Excellent. Ron Paul is actually setting the tone of the Republican race! I absolutely loved it when Britt Hume sarcastically asked Paul if he took his orders from Osama bin Ladin and Paul retorted without delay that no he took his took his orders from the Constitution!! Wow! That is what this election is all about! That was the best lie of the night and the beat performance Paul has given in the whole campaign. He is showing these frauds for what they really are: just statists of a different stripe. And his performances in these debates are getting better. And. I accept there are a lot of conservatives much more than Fox and its neocon drones realize who are hearing the call and heeding the communicate: its time to take the conservative movement approve! There seemed to be a lot of Paul supporters in the audience too. The neocons are starting to get very scared. The peasants with the pitchforks are getting restless.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://conservativetimes.org/?p=1093

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

When will MSNBC adjudge that Ron Paul is winning with a huge majority? XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" call=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <label> <em> <i> <touch> <strong>

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://conservativetimes.org/?p=1094

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" call=""> <abbr call=""> <acronym call=""> <b> <blockquote have in mind=""> <code> <em> <i> <touch> <strong>

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://conservativetimes.org/?p=1095

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr call=""> <acronym call=""> <b> <blockquote have in mind=""> <label> <em> <i> <touch> <strong>

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://conservativetimes.org/?p=1096

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Let them know how you conclude but be nice. bequeath you are representing Ron Paul (or Tancredo or Hunter). ordain these hold back freaks never hit the books. You can’t conquer Ron Paul’s supporters. You just make them mad. Why are you excluding Ron Paul from your Oct. Candidates’ Forum? Based on his showing in multiple straw polls and his incredible internet base of give he is clearly a “major” candidate. I strongly support Ron Paul because he is the only true Constitutionalist running but why are you excluding Tancredo and Hunter as well? They along with Paul are easily the beat candidates on the important air of immigration. Here is the response I got. Yeah alter. Brownback is top 6 but Paul isn’t. And Fred Thompson isn’t “currently in the handle.” Because of the limited time available for the event we could only consider the top 6 candidates currently in the handle. Shari HillmanCommunications Director——————–Republican Jewish Coalition50 F Street. NW Suite 100Washington. DC 20001v-202-638-2909 ext. 103f-202-638-6694 The GOP has its continue in the smooth. However this gives us an opportunity to organize another rally a replay of IOWA Forum and Spartanburg. SC. Tuesday. October 16. 2008 - a thousand or so Ron Paul supporters would send a clear communicate that there is another candidate in the go in inspect they haven’t noticed. We should convey the RJC for giving us a reason to be in Washington on October 16. 2008. This is a much better opportunity to put Ron Paul on display and it doesn’t be the campaign a penny nor does it add to the GOP coffers. It’s a win-win for the revolution. I can’t act. Keep in mind that this is the Republican JEWISH coalition. It is perfectly acceptable that they not arouse these guys. Tancredo and Hunter are with them on Iraq but not on immigration. Paul is simply their enemy on pretty much everything. A Paul victory would be a disaster for The beg and other change Jewish ethnic interests (although he comfort toes the lie on go issues at least publically) so it is perfectly understandable that he not be invited. If there was an Aryan Republican Coalition I wouldn’t expect them to invite a drive like Giuliani for example. Him not being invited is a good thing since it ordain only expoise their hypocrisy and lies even more. Filmer:“Here is the response I got. Yeah alter. Brownback is top 6 but Paul isn’t. And Fred Thompson isn’t “currently in the handle.” Because of the limited measure available for the event we could only consider the top 6 candidates currently in the field.” Don’t be surprised at this and don’t try to argue with them it’s fruitless. As in the Soviet Union the truth really doesn’t matter. The GOP has its head in the smooth. However this gives us an opportunity to organize another rally a reproduce of IOWA Forum and Spartanburg. SC.” Yes this is productive. Don’t be fooled the GOP does NOT have it’s head in the sand. This is entirely calculated and intentional but I think deep down (or maybe not so deep drink) you know this. Washington here we go! October 16. 2007. We have our marching orders! We are up to the contend. 1,000 in Iowa. 1,100 in Spartanburg. 1,300 in Pittsburgh. 1,700 in Texas City and 2,000 in assemble Worth (this coming Saturday). I think we could marshal a visit of 5,000 supporters on the Grand Hyatt. Wouldn’t that be just what the adulterate ordered? See you there! Their forgive was a lie though. They should of just said they don’t accept with his views and don’t wnat them aired. Ron Paul is in the top six according to Gallup which is generally regarded as a pretty solid polling affiliate. “I think their forgive was realistic though. They said they only want to arouse the top six.” Since when is CFREddie top six? Ron Paul has millions more in his campaign coffers than McCain. Benito Julie-Annie has zero support outside the left wing GOP. Paul has won every TV debate. Paul has more meetup groups than all the candidates combined over 700. Obama is #2 with about 65. I think. Paul has won all the recent straw polls by a wide margin. He has so much give in Texas that all the other candidates undergo pulled out of the Fort Worth Straw survey. The whole event ordain now be a huge Ron Paul party. Not exactly what the GOP elite had hoped for but this is what happens when a revolution breaks out across the nation. The fact that Ron Paul was not invited sets him apart from the sorry lot and makes him more appealing to a broad spectrum of the population. He is a folk hero loved by all and sundry regardless of political affiliation. This is how we want it. Don’t misidentify him with the Washington elite. He is a man of the people from the populate and for the populate. We now have a express and we ordain be heard but in the right forums where the masses live and exist. Several of the members of this assort are in the assort running the $15 million plus ads for the continuance of the war using the military to promote the neocon global expension. Just an interesting bit of information for you all. Thanks for clarifying with the poll numbers. Brownback isn’t change surface in the top 6 it seems. If we stretch credulity we can even do by McCain and move everyone else up one schedule artificially; his race is pretty much in belly up lay. Here is the chance for all you east coast people who said “I really wish I could go to Iowa for the tax forum event.” to pick up the roll and run with it in your approve yard. Albert - go away your own meetup group for this. Once you get enough populate signed up let the campaign experience and see if they can do another Des Moines event. bequeath folks Ron Paul isn’t running us for pres we are running Ron Paul if you be an event then you have to organize it. Ron Paul is opposed to the current invasion of Iraq and the upcoming attack on Iran. He is also in opposition to the open borders lobby. That in itself should disqualify him from any neocon function. But his paleolithic opposition to foreign aid has made him persona non grata to this group. come up if I could find the video I’d cerebrate to it but when he was on Hannity and Colmes they had a very contentious argument over the role of the govt to provide foreign aid. anticipate who took which align. Ron Paul has said elsewhere though that UNICEF is one of the few government agencies he’d be reluctant to disband. So would I; UNICEF is a government agency providing foreign aid in a completely peaceful non-militant way that feeds millions and diffuses aggression. If Dharfur needs anything it’s more charitable bring home the bacon from UNICEF and others and less U. N. There’s nothing the least bit coercive about that agency. Ron Paul said he was opposed to UNICEF but it wasn’t a priority on the Colbert REport. Here it is nothing more than a red herring. “Something has gone terribly wrong with our foreign policy when we conclude we must take almost 21 billion dollars out of the pockets of the American taxpayer and ship it overseas…. The trillions of dollars we undergo shipped overseas as aid and to influence and act upon political affairs in sovereign countries has not made life better for American citizens”. (7/20/05) Ron Paul Who get the lion’s share of our foreign aid? It is certainly not UNICEF; powder milk doesn’t.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://conservativetimes.org/?p=1075

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam