0 votes

James Dobson on Hannity radio show

James Dobson said tonight on Hannity's radio show that he would not vote for Giuliani, Thompson, or McCain. He said that there will be a "dark horse" from the 2nd tier.

Without christian conservatives the republicans cannot win. Did anyone hear it?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Sort of misses the mark

It is good that Dr Paul has released this, but he sort of missed the mark with its content. A Statement of Faith is supposed to be a statement about one's religious beliefs with a special emphasis on doctrine. This statement has a special emphasis on political action.

While I think it is good, it could have been much more effective had he laid out the foundations of his Christian faith.

I think....

I think Dobson would actually lean towards Huckabee. Huckabee was a Southern Baptist preacher...I think this is who Dobson is seeing as the "dark horse", but I'm still going to email him asking him to support Dr. Paul.


Bump TRacy



SD Ron Paul liberty Operation up an running.

Donate here https://rally.org/southdakotaforliberty/donate
Volunteer for Phone from Home here http://www.southdakotaforliberty.com/node/4

nstead of saying Dobson "won't" support him. Write and try.

How about this. Instead of saying Dobson "won't" support him. Why don't we all e-mail Dobson and try to change his mind.


Here is the E-mail I sent them. Larry Burkett was a Financial Coundile that had a show on the moody bible institude when I was younger. Dobson knows who he is. That's why I mentioned the Federal Researve. I mentioned the Constitution PArty endorsement stuff before Libertarian. Read it. Critique it. But Please. Write your own message. Don't just copy mine. (I'm not a very good writer anyway. Use it for ideas though.

Subject: Will you Endorse Ron Paul? He's the only true Christian Conservative in the GOP Race.

Ron Paul is a true Christian who lives his Christianity. He recently issued a statement of faith http://www.covenantnews.com/ronpaul070721.htm in covenant news.

Not only that, he lives his faith. He's been happily married to only 1 woman in the last 50 years or so. As an OB/GYN who has delivered more then 4,000 babies, he's also very pro-life.

In congress he authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094. Included in this legislation, was wording to constitutionally limit federal courts appellate jurisdiction in this matter -- as article III of the constitution says the federal courts are able to be legally restrained by congress, so that Roe V Wade would be nullified by simple vote as long as president doesn't veto the legislation. You will stop seeing federal money going to Planned Parenthood with a Paul Presidency which still happens under the Bush Presidency. From his voting Record, Paul is actually much more Pro-Life the Bush.

Dobson's always talking about protecting the family. Well the income tax and the fact that we need to work 2 jobs just to make ends meet because the government taxes us so much means that 1 parent isn't able to stay home and take care of the kids. And so the government schools end up raising them instead and they fall through the cracks. Money problems are one of the main strains on marriage these days, and abolishing the income tax and cutting government spending down and replacing it with nothing, would go a long way to solve this problem.

This isn't that radical of a concept. The income tax only brings in maybe 30% of the federal revenues. In fact if the federal government budget were cut by the amount of money the federal income tax brings in, it would be as large as the it was at the end of the Clinton years. Yes. Government spending has grown that much. In my opinion as a conservative, that size of government that's still too big. Ron Paul agrees -- unlike every other contender for the Republican nomination.

Dr Congressman Paul also wants to deal with the inflation that Dr Larry Burkett used to talk about, by restraining the Federal Reserve and hopefully abolishing it eventually, and returning to some sort of commodity standard other then fiat or funny money.

Dr Congressman Paul is also very pro-home-schooling. In fact he'd like to see government out of education completely, and he's advocating abolishing the Dept of Education. As well he's introduced legislation in congress to help protect educational freedom.

Here's an actual Christian missionary in Columbia that writes about Ron Paul. http://achristianblogs.blogspot.com/search/label/Ron%20Paul

Dr Dobson has recently stated that if Gulliani, Romney, McCain, or Thompson gets the GOP nomination he won't endorse them and might endorse a third party, or would be seeking a dark horse candidate coming from the rear. But the Christian centric Constitution Party has already endorsed Ron Paul. An official Constitution Party statement recently stated that if Ron Paul wins the GOP nomination, they will endorse him. The Presidential nominee for the Constitution Party last year, Michael Peourotka, has openly endorsed Ron Paul's run for the Republican Party Nomination already. http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=926
See also Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party VP
nominee last year. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/baldwin3.html

Ron Paul IS that Dark Horse. We have a real chance to get a strict Constitutionalist, and a Goldwater-Taft social and fiscal conservative actually IN the white-house in 2008. (In fact, Ron was only 1 of 5 republicans who endorsed Reagan for the 1976 nominee.) The fact is, Ron Paul has been raising as much money as John McCain, and has money money in the bank then him, and is pretty close to Fred Thompson in how much money he has on hand. And Ron Paul's $5 Million came from individuals with the average donation of $40. The money means he's a real contender. The fact the average donation is no small means he has widespread support. He's been rising in the polls also, and he has huge grassroots support (over 50,000 volunteers signed up on meet-up. ( http://ronpaul.meetup.com/ )

You're endorsement would really help to secure him the Republican Party nomination. If Paul wins the Republican nomination, the 3rd parties will campaign for the Republican candidate -- Ron Paul. And if Ron Paul wins the nomination, he'll win the White house.

Yes. Ron Paul is the only Republican Nominee who can beat Hillary. The Constitution party, by itself has been a spoiler in some states in many general elections for Republicans. So has the Libertarian party -- and they've endorsed Ron Paul too. They're willing to support a pro-life person because they believe abolishing the income tax and restoring liberty is more important. Past Presidential nominees and current people running for the Libertarian Nomination have openly endorsed Ron Paul. Both Michael Badnarik, and the late Aaron Ruso,
both contenders for the LP Nomination last time (Badnarik WAS the nominee), and Steve Kubby, one of the main "frontrunners" in the LP Nomination this time around have all endorsed Ron Paul. Steven Kubby has said,
http://knappster.blogspot.com/2007/07/and-now-for-something-... and the general consensus in the LP is that, if Ron
Paul wins the Republican Nomination, they'll step down, endorse Ron Paul and maybe even actively campaign for Paul. There are several local county Constitution Parties and Libertarian Parties, and even 1 or 2 county level Green Parties who have openly endorsed Ron Paul already and aren't waiting to see if he wins the Republican party nomination.

Plus Ron Paul reaches out to the Reagan Democrats, where-as none of the others Republican candidates Reach out to them. But if the Republican Party endorses anybody else, they'll vote for Hillary.

With the 2 main spoiler parties for the Republican party actively endorsing and campaigning for the GOP nominee we will actually have a true conservative in the White House who lives his Family Values and will actively campaign to nullify or repeal Roe Vs Wade. And we know he'll do this because he been actively introducing legislation to do just that for the last 10 years he's been in Congress.

You will stop seeing federal money going to Planned Parenthood which still happens under the Bush presidency. Yes. Paul is known as Dr No in Congress, because he votes no on everything he believes is unconstitutional and lobbyists don't even go into his office because that know this about him. That he's a man of integrity. So he means what he says. We can turn Dr No into Dr Veto, and he'll Veto all those unConstitutional spending bills.

Thank you for your consideration.

Tracy Saboe
800 N Prairie Ave
Sioux Falls, SD 57104

SD Ron Paul liberty Operation up an running.

Donate here https://rally.org/southdakotaforliberty/donate
Volunteer for Phone from Home here http://www.southdakotaforliberty.com/node/4

check the "you're" ...I saw

check the "you're" ...I saw at least one where it should be your instead of you're

Thanks Tracy

Very nice!

Jane Aitken, 35-Year Veteran Teacher
Ron Paul 2008 Consultant
GOP Woman of the Year 2009
Founder NH Tea Party Coalition (NOT AFFILIATED WITH ANY FAKE 2009 GROUP)
Founder USPEINetwork @ Yahoo (Nat'l Edu Activism Group)
Board Coalition of NH Taxpayers

huck sux


Huckabee may not be a CFR member, but he is a CFR appeaser. I wish Dobson would endorse Ron, but the Christian right really wants and really believes in religious war (I like the Crusades comment earlier). I think it comes from desire to see pre-tribulation rapture in our own time, especially given some of the similarities between today and events predicted in Revelations.

Psst... They're talking about Huckabee

Pastor (and ex-governor) Mike Huckabee is who they are alluding to, and who they are going to support in all probability.

I don't think they'll get behind Paul, because of some issues they have with his stance on gay rights and abortion. Paul wants to differ to the state, the Christian Right wants it banned at the National level -not unlike Iran.

Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich have already come out endorsing Huckabee.

Clinton & Gingrich

supporting Huckabee, I think that will be a big plus for Ron Paul !!!!

"Freedom is a right that can never be won in war,only by each individual "

I think you are right.

I think you are right. An endorsement for Paul would be best, an endorsement for Huckabee would be second best. More votes for Huckabee = less votes for all the other neocons, diluting their vote and making Ron Paul votes more effective. Ron Paul spoke on this during the debate when asked what he thought about Fred Thompson joining the race so late. 25% of the vote may win New Hampshire.


Now, that's what I call a post, an individual who knows his subject eluminating it for others. Thanks,

I heard this on the radio..

I heard this on the radio.. I actually made a topic about it that apparantly got lost somewhere =/

Will James Dobson support Huckabee or Ron Paul? According to the value voters debate straw poll the answer is Huckabee, but according to how far off the GOP has gotten from its original values the answer is Ron Paul. If James Dobson actively supports Ron Paul then it would all be seal the defeat of Hillary.

"I will bless those that bless Israel..."

I seriously don't understand that at all. I mean, the foreign policy of non-intervention existed before Israel came into being. Why should you change the rules for any one nation? Just because the Bible says so? I mean if you are neutral with everyone in military and political matters, but encourage friendship and trade with all nations, doesn't that mean you are blessing everyone?

Since when does subsidizing = blessing? Does Israeli expansionism = blessing too? Is it a blessing to railroad the Palestinians? I just do not buy this subsidize Israel from cradle to grave mentality and I don't equate that as blessing someone.

Does anyone believe for one minute, that the US government involvement in protecting Israel have anything to do at all, with Christian principles? I seriously doubt it. The US government has no reverence for any deity, much less the Christian deity. The only thing our Government loves, is money and power.

In my estimate, the sooner we back away from Israel, the better. If Israel wants to run roughshod in the region, let her do what she wants. Wouldn't that be more in line with "blessing" her to do as she wishes with whomever she wishes?

Israel is a nuclear power for crying out loud. Why the hysteria? I just don't get it. With everyone a nuclear power, it doesn't even matter who's side anyone is on. If everyone fired their nukes and all hell broke loose, the only difference is which people would end up a finer grain of ash. We would ALL be history.

If scripture as it pertains to Israel is true, and God protects her, then why on earth is any intervention necessary? Obviously no one can wipe her off the map if she truly has "God's" protection.

Ultimately, diplomacy and trust have to win it, because force does not work. It doesn't work with secular leaders, much less with religious fanatics. The sooner we get out of the whole middle east, the better.

Am I missing something? Does pulling out of Israel to let her defend herself = cursing her?

Fatally flawed theology at work.

God bless anyone brave enough to take the time to read this long-winded post.

The current mainstream evangelical position vis-à-vis the state of Israel is wrong on many levels, but I want to address the theological flaw which ultimately leads to some Christians’ support of “Israel" (through war on its behalf) because of God’s promise that everyone who blesses Israel will be blessed.

Point 1: Nowhere in the Bible does God say to bless Israel the modern state. The key scripture used by those who claim that we must “bless” Israel in order to be blessed is Genesis 12:3, where God said to Abraham: “I will bless those who bless you, And I will curse him who curses you; And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” (NKJV). This promise is clearly to Abraham, not to all his descendents. This was obvious from the beginning since God clarified to Abraham that Isaac was the son of the promise, not Ishmael, his other son by Hagar.

Abraham’s son Isaac “blessed” his son Jacob in the same way in Genesis 27:29: “Let peoples serve you, And nations bow down to you. Be master over your brethren, And let your mother’s sons bow down to you. Cursed be everyone who curses you, And blessed be those who bless you!” (NKJV) Esau, Jacob’s brother, was also Abraham’s descendent, but this “blessing” was not given to him, only to Jacob. If the blessing were for all Abraham’s descendents, then Esau would have received it, but he did not.

Point 2: In answer to Point 1, many say, Jacob is later called “Israel” by God — so the promise really is to “Israel,” since all Israel is said to descend from him, racially. But this violates the hermeneutical principle that all scripture is interpreted in the light of all other scripture (i.e., no taking verses out of context!). When the rest of the Bible is examined, it becomes clear that God’s promise is NOT for Israel the physical race descended from Jacob.

Instead of this promise being to a racial group, Paul makes it clear in Romans 9:6-9 that God does not consider Israel to be a physical nation after the flesh, but only those who are children of the “promise” are counted as the “seed” of Abraham:

“For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.” That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.”

Did you catch that? The children of the flesh alone, i.e., those called Israel and the Jews today, are not the children of God — only those who are the children of the promise.

What promise? See the last part of the promise to Abraham in Point 1, that in him all the nations of the earth would be blessed. God promised Abraham three times that “In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.” (Genesis 22:18, also at 26:4, and 28:14). Paul explains this promise in Galations 3:16: “Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He [God] does not say, ‘And to seeds,’ as of many, but as of one, ‘And to your Seed,’ who is Christ.” In Galations 3:29, Paul adds: “And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”

Thus, the scriptural logic is that all those who belong to Christ — i.e., true followers of Christ — are the fulfillment of the promise given to Abraham and thus the children of the promise. The real heir of the promise of blessing is Christ, and all who belong to Christ are the real descendents of Abraham. If it can be said that the promise to Abraham — that all who bless him will be blessed, and all who curse him will be cursed — is a promise to his descendents, then this is a promise to those who belong to Christ, not to Abraham’s physical descendents.

Many “Christians” today, like Esau, Jacob’s brother, have sold their birthright for a mess of pottage. They support a nation that God does NOT say He blesses, and they hijack their country’s government to support their own flawed theology, dragging you and me and everyone else into the fray. If they believe they should support Israel the state, then let them by all means individual and collective put their OWN money and time toward supporting Israel, no one can quarrel with that. But to hijack taxes taken from others and enlist your own countrymen in support of the defense of a country not their own is THEFT, and God does say “Thou shalt not steal.”

Sorry for the long post. I am most passionate about this, because I am a Christian myself, and long to see Christians put Christ first in all their dealings with other people, no matter their race or religion.


Romans 9:6-9 is the key

Unfortunately you can quote Romans 9:6-9 to Christians until you're blue in the face, and they will still not be convinced. They are also deceived because of a flawed interpretation of the Book of Revelation, which they believe teaches that God still works with physical Israel as a nation, i.e. the 144,00 jews.


Thanks, that’s what I have always believed as a Christian as well as my Family and Church friends (and there most all Ron Paul supporters).


Thank you very much for writing that message.

I can not thank you enough, and thank God, that you took the time to explain how the "Christian Conservatives" are being misled. What a beautiful message to read on a Sunday afternoon.


Blessing Israel doesn't mean

Blessing Israel doesn't mean preemptively attacking her enemies for her, or subsidizing her existence.
Nor does it mean she becomes the United States's, 51st welfare state.

A noninterventionism policy towards Israel by letting them settle their own affairs would go along way in stabilizing the Middle East.

Vote Ron Paul, and support Israel's sovereignty.

We sure as heck know the Bush plan of interventionism and meddling hasn't made the Middle East any safer.

Dark Horse! Remember

Dark Horse!
Remember Seabiscuit?
Seabiscuit is one of the most memorable Thoroughbreds in history because of the hope and joy that he brought to the American public. People said his jockey was too big, his trainer too old and he too small to win anything. They couldn't have been more wrong. The little horse that spent his first few years racing on the lower claiming ranks soon catapulted to the top races of the country from coast to coast. He captured the hearts of racing fans everywhere.

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.
Thomas Jefferson

“It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds”
-Sam Adams

Maybe my Christian friends can help me....

I was raised Catholic. Now I'm a "devout" Atheist. I need an answer to these questions. And yes, I have read some of the comments here

---Why would ANY Christian support this war?

---We are a Christian nation, yet we publicize and cheer when we kill other people? What? I see, we are all creatures of God, unless he's a "terrorist'?

---We have a right to go to a foreign nation and hunt and kill people yet they don't have a right to kill our troops? Think of this last statement as it relates to "blowback."

---Is this what Jesus taught? Revenge? I just wonder every time that a Michael Savage, Sean Hannity or a GW Bush advocates the killing of other people. Is this really what Christianity taught you?


---Why would ANY Christian support this war?

A lot of Christians support this war because it seems to fit in well with biblical eschatology (doctrines of last things/days). Evangelical Christians are Zionists for the most part, myself included, are thus support Israel. Standing against Iraq, Iran, Syria... these all play well with Biblical eschatology. That is why Evangelical Christians support the Middle East inteventionism. They don't know that it is a strategic move in order to secure the world's oil reserves.

I don't support this war... I never did from day one. I never supported GWB, either. I voted Constitution Party in 2004.

---We are a Christian nation, yet we publicize and cheer when we kill other people? What? I see, we are all creatures of God, unless he's a "terrorist'?

We are a "Christian nation" inasmuch as our laws and government incorporate much of Mosaic Law into out legal system and our moral foundation is upon Biblical morals.
However, our nation has become a very violent nation with movies, TV, video games, sports, etc., and now it seems that we cheer and chant "kill him" much as the Romans did in the Coloseum. It isn't right. The Bible says that "God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked." Thus, we shouldn't either.

---We have a right to go to a foreign nation and hunt and kill people yet they don't have a right to kill our troops? Think of this last statement as it relates to "blowback."

I don't think we have a right to do that, but apparently there are some who do. It is hypocritical, indeed.

---Is this what Jesus taught? Revenge? I just wonder every time that a Michael Savage, Sean Hannity or a GW Bush advocates the killing of other people. Is this really what Christianity taught you?

These things need to be taken in proper context. Christ and Christianity teach us morality and patterns for personal conduct. It does not teach us politics.
Politics is a function of the secular state. Christianity is a function of faith and religion. I don't think the two (Religion and State) ought to intersect the way they seem to be doing.
According to the Bible, the State has the right to go to war against other nations and to punish criminals (Romans 13:4), but Christians are not to go to war (John 18:36).

Unfortunately, the Evangelical movement has allowed the government to co-opt them into supporting war. I think it is a tragedy and I stand almost alone at my church in those who don't support this war (and war with Iran, for that matter).

This Christian doesn't support Iraq War

I don't support the Iraq War or UN police action to be more exact, nor do I support the DemoRepub social-fascist Congressional approach or vote of giving or relinquishing Congressional authority for War, to the POTUS to go after every so called terrorist in the world.

We need to get back to Constitutional Rule of Law, designed by our Christian forefathers, inspired of God, for the purpose of spreading peace hope and prosperity through Liberty, not Tyranny, warfare, and welfare that seems to keep people impoverished.

If you haven't got, Ron Paul's new book, "A Foreign Policy of Freedom", get it and read it.
He has practically foretold some of the messes where in as we speak, pertaining to foreign policy and our domestic spending, and has been sounding the warning for many years.
He is absolutely on the mark when he talks about "blowback" from our new age thinking in America of interventionism and nation/empire building foreign policies.

It's incredible we haven't had a total meltdown of economy in America yet from all our bad debt and overspending from foreign policies that sometimes even conflict or overlaps each others intended purposes for those regions we entangle ourselves in. This I believe is what Paul means when he talks about "Guns and Butter" referiing to past wars or interventions.

It's not what Christianity

It's not what Christianity taught me. My dad as a pastor prays every week at church that this "unjust" war would be brought to a end.


I'm glad...

That you all took the time to answer my post. Like I mentioned previously, I am no longer associated with any faith-based group and have rejected the idea of a supreme being. However, it is refreshing to know that there are Christians, such as yourselves, that know what you are talking about.

I just sometimes wonder about the hypocrisy of some so-called Christians, especially those in the media. When RP talks about how the NeoCons have rejected the "just war" principles of Christianity, I wonder why....well, it just bothers me that other "christians" want this war. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

The Huckster

Yes, the Value Voters have anointed The Huckster. The thing is that Evangelical Christians are notoriously tight wadded. They'll give to their church but not to anything else. That's why The Huckster has no money. He's just like the other Neocons except he's an Evangelical pastor which makes him appealing to that crowd.


I don't think Dobson would ever endorse Paul. He is for a marriage amendment, the war, the war on drugs, etc... I would be surprised if he supported Paul, but I think it would be great if Dobson would come out and lead his Christian followers against the war, but I don't see it happening. The other day on his radio program he had Rick Santorum preaching about how we need to eradicate Islamic terrorists. It was surreal, I thought I was listening to a crusader, and in fact I was. Santorum was praising Bush ad nauseam, and then he concluded by saying that Bush wasn't doing enough. He wants Iran, and probably Pakistan, Syria, and SA. These guys are ultra neo-cons.

Dobson Fear Mongerer #1

I have read some of Dr. Dobson's books (Dare to Discipline, Love Must be Tough, Bringing Up Boys, When God Doesn't Make Sense), I have seen him speak. My mother listens to him almost daily. Nearly everyday, he comes up with something new for his followers to fear; violence, porn, drugs, satanism, movies, rock music, homosexuals, liberals, muslims, etc. The underlying message he puts out is, "circle the wagons and pray, because the world is a BAD place, and you should be afraid! Stay safe with your family in the Christian subculture." Ron Paul is almost the Anti-Dobson, because if you notice, Ron Paul never talks about being afraid. I for one would dance with glee if the Ron Paul express ran right over Focus on the Family and made Jim Dobson more irrelevant than he is now.

...there will be a "dark horse" from the 2nd tier

There will be indeed:

Dark Horse is a good thing. It's time we owned that title.

Look At All The Happy Creatures


I can't see why not Dobson would not support the doctor, religion wise he's a solid guy, prayer in schools, pro life, been married to the same woman for 50 years...

I'm sure he would prefer Huckabee, but if the Huckleberry Hound fizzes out (which he is, 1m is not a 1st tier number especially for a guy receiving so much positive media attention...)

If we get the Christian Conservatives, that's it, we win.

We can start planning what to do with all the extra cash we'll get after the income tax is gone.

They are are VERY motivated 11% that has a powerful message machine.


As a Christian Conservative I agree that if we get the rest of them on board it will be a slam dunk.

Now the big BUT...

They will have a hard time with abolishing the War on Drugs, no Federal marriage amendment, and some other things.