JTF.ORG Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: OdKahaneChai on January 03, 2008, 10:23:56 PM
-
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119937680369165081.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119937680369165081.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news)
Sen. Barack Obama won a fiercely fought three-way race for the Democratic presidential contest in Iowa, Sen. Barack Obama won a tight three-way race for the Democratic presidential contest in Iowa, bidding to make history as the first black U.S. president. Mike Huckabee won the Republican nod, buoyed by a huge turnout by evangelical Christians in the Iowa caucuses, as Iowa voters rewarded upstart candidates over the establishment's picks.
Nearly six in 10 GOP voters said they were evangelical or born-again Christians -- a huge portion of the electorate -- and they rallied to Mr. Huckabee. The former Baptist pastor took nearly half of the evangelical votes, with non-evangelicals spreading their support among Mitt Romney and other Republicans in the hunt.
"His belief is my belief," said Carole Schafer, 79 years old, of Urbandale, who was decked out in a pink jacket as she prepared to caucus for Mr. Huckabee. While she thinks Mr. Romney "looks like a president" and is "qualified," she had reservations about his Mormonism. "I'm not sure about his faith," she said.
After spending millions in Iowa, Mr. Romney was set to take second. At his Iowa headquarters, there was a stunned silence as television networks projected he would lose.
Mr. Huckabee's victory was fueled by voters attracted to his unwavering views on social issues and a G-d-infused message from the stump. His strong sense of humor, master story telling and populist promise to represent Main Street over Wall Street added to his appeal.
He advertised himself as a consistent conservative and a Christian leader -- implicit digs at Mr. Romney, who once held more liberal views on abortion and gay rights and whose Mormonism made some Christians uncomfortable.
Campaigning today, Mr. Huckabee got his biggest applause when he said: "If you hear me talk about being pro-life it's not a position that the pollsters gave me last week or a focus group said 'when you go to Iowa be sure to tell them this.'"
The entrance survey found that when asked what one personal quality mattered most, Republicans were most likely to say "shares my values." Among those voters, Mr. Huckabee dominated. Mr. Romney did best with those who were looking for someone with the right experience or for someone with the best chance to win in November.
Mr. Romney now goes on to New Hampshire, where his plane is scheduled to touch down around 2 a.m. Friday and where he faces another stiff challenge, this time from Sen. John McCain. Another loss on Tuesday could mean serious trouble for the man who counted on lapping these first two states.
Among Democrats, half the voters said that having a candidate who can bring about change was most important to them, and as expected, they broke heavily for Mr. Obama. He also won strong backing from the young. One in five participants in the Democratic caucuses were independents, and those voters were most likely to support Mr. Obama, too.
As Rob Moyers stood in line to caucus at the Lovejoy Elementary School in Des Moines, Mrs. Clinton came through to greet voters. After she shook hands with Mr. Moyers he said, "I looked into Obama's eyes and he seemed sincere. Now, that looked mechanical. She's like a robot."
Older voters favored Mrs. Clinton as did those looking for someone who has the right experience and someone with the best chance to win in November.
Throughout their contest, Mrs. Clinton made the case for experience, Mr. Obama argued he represented the best chance for change, and former Sen. John Edwards drove home a populist message that only an outsider can fix Washington's troubles and break the stranglehold of corporate lobbyists.
Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama both have strong operations in New Hampshire and will go onto a rematch there. Former Sen. John Edwards' fate was less certain, as he had invested heavily in winning Iowa. By the time all the votes are counted, he may be third.
A big key to Mr. Obama's Iowa win was a strategy he adopted early of attracting voters who hadn't caucused before or weren't inclined to do so this year. It was a risky, even foolhardy strategy, political operatives from rival camps said, mainly because it rarely works. For Democrats at least, caucusing remains a practice of the committed. Byzantine rules and time-consuming procedures mean that in many precincts, casting a vote can take up to two hours.
During the last week, Mr. Obama staged a poll of sorts, asking those who attended his rallies to raise their hands if they were first-time caucus-goers and whether they remained committed. Right up to the end, both groups remained large, with undecided voters routinely making up a quarter of the audiences.
"I want to create a new electoral math,'' Mr. Obama routinely told supporters. "I don't want to practice division, I want to practice addition.''
The strategy worked: more than half of all Democratic voters were first-time caucus-goers, who heavily favored Mr. Obama.
Unlike Mrs. Clinton and especially Mr. Edwards, Mr. Obama cast himself as the candidate most equipped to end Washington gridlock. It was a positive message, underscored by the word "Hope,'' a word that carried an almost talismanic quality in the Obama campaign. "I've noticed that some of the other candidates are almost scornful of the word, the implication being that if you're hopeful you must be naïve,'' Mr. Obama said. "That's not what hope is. Hope is not ignoring the challenges ahead. Hope is working for and fighting for what seemed impossible before."
Though an uneven public speaker, Mr. Obama seemed to get his rhetorical sea legs in the final sprint, even as his speeches grew exponentially in length. In the last few days, he spoke for more than an hour at each of his events. Often quick with a quip, the man who described himself as "a skinny guy with a funny name" maintained a self-deprecating style that clearly delighted many of his supporters.
On the Republican side, Mr. Romney dominated the race for most of 2007, but by late November, Mr. Huckabee, a former Baptist pastor, had taken the lead, as religious voters frustrated with the better-funded by flawed competition gravitated to the candidate seen as most dedicated to their issues.
Mr. Huckabee told audiences that victory would shake the political world and, indeed, the former Arkansas governor overcame a massive financial mismatch. Mr. Romney spent a total of $7 million on TV ads over the course of the Iowa campaign to Mr. Huckabee's $1.4 million, according to an independent estimate. Over the last three weeks, much of the Romney spending went to a barrage of negative ads attacking Mr. Huckabee's record on immigration, crime and foreign policy.
But Mr. Huckabee resisted putting attacks of his own on the air, convinced that Iowa voters would respond to an optimistic, positive campaign. Just three days ago, he was set to run a harsh ad attacking Mr. Romney, only to pull it at the last minute. The move was ridiculed by the national press but played well into Iowans' sense that he was above the fray.
"Every piece of political advice is you got to go and attack those guys right back," he said on New Year's Day in Council Bluffs. "It came down to, if a man gains the whole world and loses his own soul, what does it profit him?" he said, quoting Jesus' Sermon on the Mount. "And I decided, even the presidency, as important as it is, if I can't do it with self respect and can't do it with decency, it's not worth doing."
While Mr. Romney sported a much more organized campaign, with a network of supporters built over months, Mr. Huckabee relied on coalitions of voters passionately dedicated to his cause: pastors, home schoolers and supporters of the "fair tax," a national sales tax meant to replace federal income taxes.
In Iowa, the final results rest heavily on candidates' ability to get voters to turn out to caucus; each party held 1,781 caucuses in schools, church halls and fire stations across the state. Just over 10% of the state's voting-age population was expected to participate, giving a couple hundred thousand voters enormous influence over who will be the nation's next leader.
Iowans were inundated with television ads -- more than 50,000 of them at a total cost of $42 million. But the hallmark of Iowa campaigning remained the one-to-one contact between voters and the candidates who sought the nation's highest office. Amid the large-scale rallies were countless handshakes at diners and questions in living rooms.
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, for months the national front-runner, opted not to compete in Iowa, where his socially liberal views are anathema to many voters. He's also not expected to do well in New Hampshire, which votes Tuesday, and is banking on a good showing in Florida on Jan. 29 and the raft of states that vote Feb. 5. He'll be in Florida tonight.
The fight for third place was on between Sen. John McCain, former Sen. Fred Thompson and insurgent Rep. Ron Paul. Mr. McCain hardly campaigned in the state, knowing his moderate views on immigration and opposition to ethanol subsidies would go over poorly. But even a third-place showing could give him momentum going into the New Hampshire primary, where he is challenging Mr. Romney for the lead. Mr. Paul, who has raised large amounts of money over the Internet on an antiwar, anti-establishment message, was doing considerable better than Mr. Giuliani.
Meanwhile, Mr. McCain looked ahead to Michigan. His new television ad brags that he's not afraid to make people angry. He got a boost with the endorsement today from the Detroit News, which joined more than two dozen papers in backing the Arizona senator. Their pick was a slight to Mr. Romney, a Michigan native early in life and the son of a former governor.
Mr. Thompson, whose lackadaisical campaigning has disappointed many would-be supporters, has suggested he would drop out if he failed to place in the top three in Iowa.
Annoyed by the outsized influence that Iowa and New Hampshire have on the nominating contests, many states moved up their primaries and caucuses, hoping to attract candidates' attention. But the resulting cramped calendar only served to heighten the importance of the early states, where winners may gain momentum that challengers will have little time to blunt.
-
From a slightly more... reliable source:
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59528 (http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59528)
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee was declared the winner in tonight's Iowa GOP caucuses with 34 percent of the vote, to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's 25 percent and former U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson's 14 percent.
On the Democratic side, Barack Obama turned in a solid victory over former First Lady Hillary Clinton, with 37 percent of the vote to Clinton's 30 percent, who was tied with John Edwards' 30 percent.
The vote totals reflected 65 percent of the Republican precincts reporting, and 84 percent of the Democratic caucuses already finished.
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee was declared the winner in tonight's Iowa GOP caucuses with 34 percent of the vote, to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's 25 percent and former U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson's 14 percent.
On the Democratic side, Barack Obama turned in a solid victory over former First Lady Hillary Clinton, with 37 percent of the vote to Clinton's 30 percent, who was tied with John Edwards' 30 percent.
The vote totals reflected 65 percent of the Republican precincts reporting, and 84 percent of the Democratic caucuses already finished.
John McCain also came in with 13 percent of the vote on the GOP side and U.S. Rep. Ron Paul had 10 percent, while Bill Richardson had 2 percent of the Democratic vote.
Ed Rollins, Huckabee's national chairman, told FOX News the victory reflected the power of Huckabee's message.
"But more importantly the power of the messenger," Rollins told FOX. "It's gonna give us some momentum … this is a great, great candidate and obviously the voters in Iowa saw that."
Romney was gracious in conceding this particular race, but compared the Iowa triumph for Huckabee like the first inning of "a 50-inning ballgame. I'm gonna keep on battling all the way and anticipate I get the nomination when's all said and done."
Analysts noted that turnout at many locations was higher, sometimes much higher, than expected, and they reported that appeared to help Obama on the Democratic side, since his campaign specifically sought to attract new voters.
The Democratic caucuses used a formula that assessed the voters in each candidates' corner, and then assigned votes based on the strength exhibited. Republicans used a simple straw poll in which caucus-goers wrote the name of their candidate on a slip of paper and put it in a box. The names are then counted and delegates apportioned.
-
Rudy didn't do to well. I'm still routing for him. It doesn't look good.
-
Rudy didn't do to well. I'm still routing for him. It doesn't look good.
Why would you still be rooting for him?
-
It's a Miracle.
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=dbc647a6-ecac-4760-a902-c393c42cd851
And now he's leading in South Carolina. Amazing.
-
First time a candidate that JTF even remotely endorses gets anywhere in a primary in a long time.
It's a miracle. :)
I think it's a victory for Israel and for energy independence and that means a victory for our security.
I do believe we can trust Huckabee at least on those issues though I'm very skeptical of what he'll really do on taxes and immigration once in office.
And he'll wipe the floor with Obama.
-
First time a candidate that JTF even remotely endorses gets anywhere in a primary in a long time.
It's a miracle. :)
I think it's a victory for Israel and for energy independence and that means a victory for our security.
I do believe we can trust Huckabee at least on those issues though I'm very skeptical of what he'll really do on taxes and immigration once in office.
And he'll wipe the floor with Obama.
Shows you the wonders of Hashem. In very little time, the best candidate for Israel went from being unheard of to winning the Iowa Caucus.
-
Rudy didn't do to well. I'm still routing for him. It doesn't look good.
Why would you still be rooting for him?
The Iowa caucus isn't as important as you probably think. It's unlike every other state primary because the winner of the caucus does not necessarily become the state's choice for President. The caucus just elects delegates to the county convention, then at the county convention, the delegates choose the delegates for t he presidential nomination. The caucus is different from every other state primary in that it isn't really an election. It's only two hours long, and it's not even representative of the population of Iowa. The only reason why it matters is because it creates momentum for the winners, it isn't really representative of the popularity of the candidates in other states, or generally. In 1980, Reagan lost the Iowa caucus.
-
First time a candidate that JTF even remotely endorses gets anywhere in a primary in a long time.
It's a miracle. :)
I think it's a victory for Israel and for energy independence and that means a victory for our security.
I do believe we can trust Huckabee at least on those issues though I'm very skeptical of what he'll really do on taxes and immigration once in office.
And he'll wipe the floor with Obama.
Shows you the wonders of Hashem. In very little time, the best candidate for Israel went from being unheard of to winning the Iowa Caucus.
I'm not so sure if he's the best candidate for Israel. He's pretty naive when it comes to foreign policy, generally. What has he said about Iran? I know he wasn't even aware of the NIE report on Iran after it came out.
-
Obama 37.53; Edwards 29.88; Clinton 29.41
Huckabee 34; Romney 25; Thompson 14; McCain 13%; Paul 10%
-
lubab: "...I think it's a victory for Israel and for energy independence and that means a victory for our security..."
I hope you are correct, lubab, but with all due respect to you, this is exactly what was said about George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, & Congoleeza Rice.
Now, after 8 years of virtually total Republican government; the same Party of Giuliani, Romney, and Huckabee, America is nearly finished.
I no more believe Huckabee will right what's wrong in America than I believe that Bush's "Roadmap to Peace" is going to strengthen Israel.
I pray I'm wrong, but I expect Huckabee or Romney to continue exactly on the same path as Bush...they will do as they are ordered by the higher "powers that be" behind the Supranational Corporations.
Arkansas is as corrupt as New Jersey, but its as backwards as Alabama.
Huckabee's manager was with Ron Paul last week kowtowing to Hezbollah in Michigan, and Huckabee's on record as claiming "...The PLO Hamas Nazis lost their homes in Israel for no good reason...".
All I see is the same old same old....Jews willingly being duped every four years, being told one thing by crooked traitors while hearing only the translation they would "like" to hear.
And I fail to understand how Ron Paul is the apotheosis of "Satan", but when Huckabee has his personal manager standing next to Paul making speeches to Hezbollah terrorists, the Jews of JTF suddenly don't see Paul and don't hear Paul; even more hypocritical is the Jewish JTF "silence" about Ed Rollins' appeal to Hezbollah on behalf of Huckabee.
It's as if the "pure conservatism of Ed Rollins" has shed some "holy aura" over Ron Paul and their Nazi audience.
Huckabee is going to demand the Right to Return of all Nazi Terrorists to the Land of Israel...no matter what Olmert has given up to Bush & the Terrorists, Huckabee is going to immediately after election "agree that the "Peace" just hasn't gone "far enough" to be "fair".
Huckabee's not a Bible loving Christian Conservative, he's a failed rock'n'roll bass player doper radical who discovered being a redneck politician made more money than getting stoned and playing "Taking Care of Business" in redneck bars.
And if he's the "best possible choice among the worst possible choices", then there is to be no change from America's current path.
-
Iowa means a lot. It means even more if you sweep IA and NH. Huck will not do that. If McCain wins NH then Romney is done. The media makes these little states big deals. If you want to win then you play by the medias rules and Huck HAD to win Iowa. Rudy did not try at all in Iowa and NH. Florida is what he wants but by then the media may have already become obsessed with McCain and Huck. If McCain wins NH then look for it to be a 2 man race between Huck and Him with Rudy being a Wild Card. If Repubs drop out look for NONE of them to endorse Huck. Also look for the media to attack Huck in a major way.
Over on the Dem side, Clinton is in trouble. The Clintons are snakes though and she still will put everything in to NH. If she does not win NH then she is in trouble. Edwards probably will drop out if he does not win or almost win South Carolina.
Obama would destroy McCain. The media will play up the old vs young thing.
I think Huck can beat Clinton and Obama. Obama will be harder than clinton though. Yahoo news in the first line of the first paragraph about tonights election said something like "On his road to trying to become the first Black President". The media wants a black President and will focus on the "positives" of that if he wins the Democrat nomination. They will no doubt bring up the fact that Huck is a regular typical white man and probably dig back in to his past and find out his family owned slaves or were part of the KKK... you catch my drift I am sure.
-
Romney may have one thing about NH it is a neighboring State and Iowa a Midwestern like Arkansas, we will have to see what happens.
-
I woudl consider Romney and Mccain supporters to be the two anti-Huckabee anti-religion secular republicans
Guiliani supporters would be the down to earth left wing republican supporters
Huckabee the right wing religious republican supporters.
Thompson will drop out and some will disperse to either Romney, Mccain, or Guiliani.
Since Romney can't do any better than he attempted with his money in Iowa and is a transparent candidate, he will have no chance in winning. Supporters of Romney will got to McCain... So it will be up to Guiliani to prove he is a better candidate than those two. Huckabee is a man on his own and in the end it will be between Huckabee vs Guiliani or Huckabee vs. McCain.
As for the Demoncrats..I hope Obama wins because he doesn't have a shot against any of the three top republicans in my opinion. That guy is an idiot.
Huckabee, to me is a better choice than Guiliani because Hucakbee believes strongly in energy independence. This,I think, is the most important thing for us Americans to worry about..to make oil obsolete.
Guiliani is good too but only because he will fight back against muzzies and terrorists..he might even be a green type of person promoting electric cars and hybrids..but that isn't as good as Huckabee.
One issue I have with Huckabee is that he reminds me too much of GW...the only good thing about Huckabee is that he is against oil...unlike Bush who is an oil mogul.
-
Once that Dead Beat Thompson is out... Huckabee will generate more support and will decisively take over, beating Romney like a Rented Mule.
Forget about Rudy and McCain, you can stick a fork in 'em, They're Done!
-
Once that Dead Beat Thompson is out... Huckabee will generate more support and will decisively take over, beating Romney like a Rented Mule.
Forget about Rudy and McCain, you can stick a fork in 'em, They're Done!
Not every republican likes religious candidates so they aren't done..there will be a religious republican running against a secular one towards the end.
-
Once that Dead Beat Thompson is out... Huckabee will generate more support and will decisively take over, beating Romney like a Rented Mule.
Forget about Rudy and McCain, you can stick a fork in 'em, They're Done!
Not every republican likes religious candidates so they aren't done..there will be a religious republican running against a secular one towards the end.
Like who?
-
Once that Dead Beat Thompson is out... Huckabee will generate more support and will decisively take over, beating Romney like a Rented Mule.
Forget about Rudy and McCain, you can stick a fork in 'em, They're Done!
Not every republican likes religious candidates so they aren't done..there will be a religious republican running against a secular one towards the end.
Like who?
Huck will be the religious one, McCain (Slim chance Rudy) will be the secular one.
-
Isn't there at least ONE Noahide rinning for US elections? Honestly, I don't like the idea of any non-Noahide religious man governing the most powerfull country on Earth nowadays. I'd rather prefer a secular than a man from another religion. And those "born agains" surely believe that other religions are false and their followers go to hell!!!! It's not good for the US and the rest of the world!!!! However, if Huckabee will defend Israel, at least temporarily, so Israel will be safe until Redemption comes, that's good, even if he does only for religious beliefs that are contrary to Torah. The issue is that Israel can be safe until Redemption comes.
Chrsitian Zionists (not to be confused with people who are of the Christian faith and at the same time pro-Israel for the sake of justice, but do not mix Zionism with religion) may be pro-Jews but strongly anti-Torah and Talmud.
Just read this from wikipeadia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Zionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Zionism)
Christian Zionism, as a specifically theological belief, does not necessarily entail sympathy for the Jews as a nation or for Judaism as a religion. Since the biblical text is filled with references to G-d's chosen people, it is common for Christian Zionists to emphasize the Jewish roots of Christianity, and even to promote Jewish practices and Hebrew terminology as part of their own practice; however, Christian Zionists commonly believe that to fulfill prophecy, a significant number of Jews will accept Jesus as their Messiah, and that in the last days, such Messianic Jews will practice a thoroughly Hebraic form of Christianity.
-
I want the best candidate for the United States
-
I want the best candidate for the United States
Well, for the US and the West, I think he is not good. And even though I don't consider myself Western, I live here in a Western country, so he's not good for me either. But if he stops Israeli withdrawals.... it may be good providing Redemption comes soon and we don't depend on him for a long time.
Noahidism is growing in the US and many other nations due to the lack of spiritual support of other religions. A fundamentalist Christian will only make Noahide growth slow by increasing Evangelical Fundamentalism, and it's not good for the US people.
-
Raul, I don't think your comments about Christian Zionists are called for. About a third of our forum is comprised of sincere Christian Zionists. I stuck up for you when everybody wanted you banned. Please don't repay me by sowing poison against my faith and that of a heck of a lot of other forum members.
-
Everybody,
Between Wienerd Romney and Huckster, I will support Huckster because he is the underdog candidate. I don't necessarily think he is that much better than Wienerd, but he deserves the chance between those two because of the fact that Wienerd is literally trying to buy his way into office. We don't need Bill Gates as president.
I still stand behind my man Hunter, and will until the end unless he drops out. If it comes down to Huckster and Giuliani, I don't know who I will support. If it comes down to Huckster against Romney, Thompson, or anybody else, I will support Huckster.
-
Raul, I don't think your comments about Christian Zionists are called for. About a third of our forum is comprised of sincere Christian Zionists. I stuck up for you when everybody wanted you banned. Please don't repay me by sowing poison against my faith and that of a heck of a lot of other forum members.
A sincere Zionist (if Christian or any other belief) is someone who separates between religion and political ideology. I have stated several times that I support those who are Christian and at the same time Zionists for the sake of justice for a suffering nation like Israel. But I don't support those "Christian Zionists" who include their prophesies about Jews (and non-Christian Gentiles) converting, as part of their "Zionism".If their Zionism is based on common sense, justice and freedom for Mankind, it's wellcome.
If it is based on NT prophesies, not!!!!!!! Why not? Simply because it aims to undermine Judaism, and also Gentiles' freedom
-
First time a candidate that JTF even remotely endorses gets anywhere in a primary in a long time.
It's a miracle. :)
I think it's a victory for Israel and for energy independence and that means a victory for our security.
I do believe we can trust Huckabee at least on those issues though I'm very skeptical of what he'll really do on taxes and immigration once in office.
And he'll wipe the floor with Obama.
Agreed :)
-
We also are seeing how sick this country has gotten a Midwestern State like Iowa giving it to that affirmative action Muslim for the Democrats. I may have to back Huckabee without a doubt if this idiot Obama is nominated for the Dems. The average citizen is a fool if they nominate him.
-
Raul, I don't think your comments about Christian Zionists are called for. About a third of our forum is comprised of sincere Christian Zionists. I stuck up for you when everybody wanted you banned. Please don't repay me by sowing poison against my faith and that of a heck of a lot of other forum members.
A sincere Zionist (if Christian or any other belief) is someone who separates between religion and political ideology. I have stated several times that I support those who are Christian and at the same time Zionists for the sake of justice for a suffering nation like Israel. But I don't support those "Christian Zionists" who include their prophesies about Jews (and non-Christian Gentiles) converting, as part of their "Zionism".If their Zionism is based on common sense, justice and freedom for Mankind, it's wellcome.
If it is based on NT prophesies, not!!!!!!! Why not? Simply because it aims to undermine Judaism, and also Gentiles' freedom
Raul, I think there are different groups of Christian Zionists.
But look here, this is something to be happy:
(http://www.bilderhoster.net/safeforbilder/tcmpr5zx.jpg)
-
Raul, I don't think your comments about Christian Zionists are called for. About a third of our forum is comprised of sincere Christian Zionists. I stuck up for you when everybody wanted you banned. Please don't repay me by sowing poison against my faith and that of a heck of a lot of other forum members.
A sincere Zionist (if Christian or any other belief) is someone who separates between religion and political ideology. I have stated several times that I support those who are Christian and at the same time Zionists for the sake of justice for a suffering nation like Israel. But I don't support those "Christian Zionists" who include their prophesies about Jews (and non-Christian Gentiles) converting, as part of their "Zionism".If their Zionism is based on common sense, justice and freedom for Mankind, it's wellcome.
If it is based on NT prophesies, not!!!!!!! Why not? Simply because it aims to undermine Judaism, and also Gentiles' freedom
Raul, I think there are different groups of Christian Zionists.
But look here, this is something to be happy:
(http://www.bilderhoster.net/safeforbilder/tcmpr5zx.jpg)
Right On! O0
-
Doesn't it all strike everyone of you a bit strange how the media is foaming at the mouth for someone like Huckabee they really don't do this for a Republican candidate.
-
Huckabee is not so great but who else is better. Romney is a lying snake, Guiliani is an adulterer and a liberal on alot of issues, Thompson is DOA, Paul is a lunatic, Hunter has no chance, Tancredo dropped out, McCain is a RINO.
So I can understand why Huckabee won.
Did anyone here see him on Leno?
He was great and he explained the fair tax in front of millions of middle class americans.
That was Gold!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Huckabee is not so great but who else is better. Romney is a lying snake, Guiliani is an adulterer and a liberal on alot of issues, Thompson is DOA, Paul is a lunatic, Hunter has no chance, Tancredo dropped out, McCain is a RINO.
So I can understand why Huckabee won.
Did anyone here see him on Leno?
He was great and he explained the fair tax in front of millions of middle class americans.
That was Gold!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Great Post JNC! O0
my sentiments exactly
-
judaeanoncapta: "He was great and he explained the fair tax in front of millions of middle class americans..."
All well and good, but such a change of taxation can not be legally implemented without an actual Constitutional Amendment that has to be ratified by the Legislative Branch.
Any changes to the tax structure not Constitutional by Amendment are null and void.
As a matter of fact, I expect that the fair tax, if not authorized by legal Constitutional Amendment, will be rammed through the Congress and signed into phony illegal law; all without making the current IRS & Income Tax Codes null & void.
The result will be an illegal Fair Tax added on top of the illegal Federal Income Tax; both now burdening the American people.
Huckabee's a big fraud.
If he was in any ways serious about tax reform he'd first and foremost be talking to the American people about the need for a Constitutional Amendment to be drawn up and approved by our Legislative Branch.
Of course, he never mentions that "little problem"...because currently he neither supports the Constitution nor does he obey its mandates.
There's an old adage most pertinent to our present times: "The People get the kind of government that they deserve".
Huckabee is Jimmy Carter waiting to happen all over again.
-
It is not unconstitutional to implement a fair tax. If anything it's the income tax that is unconstitutional.
Changes can be made to the tax code without a Constitutional amendment and this happens all the time.
As far as I can tell no constitutional amendment is required...I'm not sure where you're getting this from but I'd like to see some proof.
-
It is not unconstitutional to implement a fair tax. If anything it's the income tax that is unconstitutional.
Changes can be made to the tax code without a Constitutional amendment and this happens all the time.
As far as I can tell no constitutional amendment is required...I'm not sure where you're getting this from but I'd like to see some proof.
The Income Tax itself was the 16th amendment, so there would need to be another amendment abolishing that amendment.
-
It is not unconstitutional to implement a fair tax. If anything it's the income tax that is unconstitutional.
Changes can be made to the tax code without a Constitutional amendment and this happens all the time.
As far as I can tell no constitutional amendment is required...I'm not sure where you're getting this from but I'd like to see some proof.
The Income Tax itself was the 16th amendment, so there would need to be another amendment abolishing that amendment.
Not at all.
Here is the text of the 16th amendment:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
That gave Congress (wrongly) the power to tax income...but it never says, and no court has interpreted it to say that we MUST have an income tax. It can be repealed without violating this amendment at all.
Now if you wanted to declare the income tax unconstitutional, then that would take a constitutional amendment. But that's not what is being proposed.
-
It is not unconstitutional to implement a fair tax. If anything it's the income tax that is unconstitutional.
Changes can be made to the tax code without a Constitutional amendment and this happens all the time.
As far as I can tell no constitutional amendment is required...I'm not sure where you're getting this from but I'd like to see some proof.
The Income Tax itself was the 16th amendment, so there would need to be another amendment abolishing that amendment.
Not at all.
Here is the text of the 16th amendment:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
That gave Congress (wrongly) the power to tax income...but it never says, and no court has interpreted it to say that we MUST have an income tax. It can be repealed without violating this amendment at all.
Now if you wanted to declare the income tax unconstitutional, then that would take a constitutional amendment. But that's not what is being proposed.
I stand corrected.
-
There are too many threads that are currently stickied in this section.
Unless someone disagrees, I'll unsticky this thread.
-
lubab: "...As far as I can tell no constitutional amendment is required...I'm not sure where you're getting this from but I'd like to see some proof...
For "proof", you might first ask the IRS to present to you a law stating that you must file a yearly tax report, and pay Federal Income Tax to the IRS.
There will be no "proof", because there has never been such a law.
A constitutional amendment was required to abandon the laws for taxation stated in the Constitution of the United States of America and to substitute in their place a central bank (The Federal Reserve) and an enforcement agency (the IRS).
This is because the Constitution is The Supreme Law of The Land, and forbids (rightly so) any taxation on income derived from one's labor.
Only corporate income and a few other income tax liability categories are to be legally taxed according to the Founding Fathers.
In addition, our Constitution mandates only Congress with the power to issue currency, and clearly states that gold and silver are the backing of any money issued in the U.S.A.
Today, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution (apparently never legally ratified) was necessary to alter the nation's banking, currency, and taxation laws, by setting up The Federal Reserve Bank as the nation's central bank.
It is privately owned, and from its inception the ownership which directly profits from its establishment is secret and has never been revealed.
The Federal Reserve is not part of The Federal Government, and it prints fiat paper currency with no backing whatsoever, sells it to the banks of the Federal Reserve System, which then "loan" the currency to those capable of paying it back with interest.
This has resulted in an unsustainable economic structure in which actual wealth has been replaced with debt.
The banks own everyone's homes, cars, and businesses, until the loan which enabled them has been paid back in full plus interest.
The IRS also is outside of the Constitution, and serves as an illegal "police agency" with no government oversight whatsoever.
An American citizen possesses the "G-d given right" under the 5th Amendment not to be forced to incriminate themself, yet the IRS demands that everyone incriminate themself by filing a tax return, paying an illegal tax, and being subject to persecution, prosecution, and property confiscation; all with no authority whatsoever.
The IRS boasts that "the American federal income tax is the world's most successful 'voluntary' tax system", but when pressed to define the term 'voluntary', they've proffered the Orwellian reply that "Voluntary means that everyone fills out their own tax form" (and will be subject to arrest and imprisonment for not volunteering).
Few Americans know that their Federal Income Tax is used only for the purposes of paying off the increasing Federal debt incurred by borrowing money from other nations to support an out-of-control cost of an ever enlarging government.
Not one penny of our paid Federal Income Tax goes for military, education, infrastructure.
In other words, the Federal Government is accumulating an every larger unpayable debt with which to support itself, by borrowing money from our enemies like China and Saudi Arabia, and the average citizen is forced to support such a fraudulent system by having their personal incomes robbed.
The actual Owners of the Federal Reserve Bank, those "secret" guys whose names we're forbidden to know, all grow increasingly richer and wealthy from the profits of the Federal Reserve, all the while maintaining the Government and people in ever increasing debt.
The money required to maintain domestic civilization is totally derived from the State and Local taxes we all pay every day with every purchase we make, and with our yearly State Income Tax.
Therefore, any changes made to an already unconstitutional "tax code" without a full Constitutional Amendment, will be nothing more than a further erosion of Americans' Constitutional Rights, and a further abandonment of our Constitution.
-
There are too many threads that are currently stickied in this section.
Unless someone disagrees, I'll unsticky this thread.
You can definitely "unsticky" it.
-
There are too many threads that are currently stickied in this section.
Unless someone disagrees, I'll unsticky this thread.
You can definitely "unsticky" it.
Yes this whole section should be unstuck because this is all old news, Huckabee is finished, McCain has the nomination, It's between Obama and Hillary now.
Please lets start current events now.
-
Forget Huckabee. It's between two evils- McCain and Obama.
Trash Obama.