Huckabee Embraces Controversial Televangelist

Huckabee went from Beverly Hills to Texas, where he holds a media avail and raises money. Huck's Texas connection? Kenneth Copeland. Huckabee has done some events and video with him. Copeland was under investigation by the Senate, not sure where that went. Or, if, like Copeland, see below, Huckabee will speak in tongues before he's through.

Last week Senator Charles Grassley, the Committee's ranking Republican, announced a probe of the finances of six television preachers. He sent each a letter filled with extremely pointed questions about their multimillion-dollar finances. The longest questionnaire, with 42 specific queries, went out to Copeland and his wife Gloria. Copeland is the founder and head of the multimillion-dollar Kenneth Copeland ministries, and the host in its crown jewel, the daily Believers Voice of Victory broadcast.

More on Kenneth Copeland:

A Charismatic Christian, Kenneth Copeland speaks in tongues and posts dozens of “prophecies” on his Web site, purportedly channeling the voice of God on a range of topics.

Here’s a 2003 prophecy, spoken in the name of the Lord, which is posted at www.kcm. org: “I have taken over the politics and the politicians. Listen to My voice. Vote the way I say in all elections. America’s place as a nation is coming to its fullest and finest hour. Not just as the military power but as the source and supply of the gospel, My gospel, in power and witness to the whole earth.”

Comments

[Huck]

Huck, I thought you were good Christians. No Christian shoud endorsement for a huckster. Hmmm. Maybe the Huckster should get an endorsment for a huckerster

[jj]

This is all very interesting, Dan, but I was wondering why you didn't reply to my comment that questioned Mitt's conservatism, especially given his positions on gun control, immigration, and his release of convicted felons involved in the murder of three people.

Michelle Malkin was kind enough to bring all this to our attention yesterday, following Mitt's appearance on one of the news shows Sunday, in which he supported gun control and professed ideas on immigration very much in line with.....are you ready....Huck.

When the truth comes out about Mitt, we will all see that he is nothing more than a liberal in conservative clothing.

[chris]

Maybe this tv bible-banger can teach Huckleberry how to cry Swaggart-style like ole Weepy Willard. That guy seems to be crying daily.

[Fred Beloit]

"When the truth comes out about Mitt, we will all see that he is nothing more than a liberal in conservative clothing."

Agreed, jj, except that this news should already be out. But Mitt doesn't have as much as Huck has of the gift. Huck has the gift of being able to be charming, like the huckster Arkie before him. That is what causes water to roll of this duck's back.

We have a looming RINO problem; the Rino is the biggest elephant in our room (couldn't resist). Rudy, a lib in many ways by nature and history. Mitt, a say and do lib if that works. John McC, who knows how he would come out on any issue? Today a conservative, a lib tomorrow, an anarchist the next day. Fred, a conservative, but aged and seemingly low-energy guy (not that that is necessarily bad for an office holder, unless there's a war, and there is). Huck, who offers us what? That old time religion. That's OK if you want it, but it belongs in that church in the wildwood, not in the oval office if that is all he offers. Paul, probably unelectable because of affiliations, and the media would do a job on Paul that would make what they did to Newt look like an endorsement.

[seekeronos]

"--- A Charismatic Christian, Kenneth Copeland speaks in tongues and posts dozens of “prophecies” on his Web site ---"

Usually a good sign that the person you are dealing with is anything but a true, Bible-believing Christian. Speaking in tongues serves no purpose in this age, and seems to have been a gift that was very limited in scope to the first-century church. Paul (the apostle) himself asserts that it is a spiritual gift that is among the least in rank, stressing that gifts like helps and prophetic utterance (which should be understood to mean "preaching" as well as revelation of future events).

Copeland's ministry is suspiciously connected to the the "prosperity gospel" movement, which erroneously teaches that monetary gain and the material comforts of this world are evidence of God's blessing and being in the centre of His will; unfortunately, a more complete reading of the Scriptures refutes this soundly. Jesus never promised His followers material wealth in *this* world, but rather, He promised that His followers would have persecutions and tribulation in this life.

Now bear in mind that the mere possession of wealth is not evil; rather, it is the attitude of accumulating and hoarding up the world's goods (I speak to those Christians who read this who might consider their electoral choices of a man endorsed by a spiritual charlatan that teaches the devil's lies) that God judges.

The wealthy Christian has a responsibility before God to be a wise steward of the wealth god has allowed him - to reduce the suffering of the believers, to fund the preaching of the Gospel to those both near and far, heathen and mis-believing, using the mammon of this world to win souls unto Christ.

These teachings of "godly surfeiting" and hoarding up the wealth for its own sake are lies of the devil: for silver and gold which becomes moth-eaten and cankered (per James chap. 5) only buys a momentary pleasure; and those who are ensnared by the lust for wealth and love the things of this world are in grave danger of the enmity of God. (James 4:4)

Therefore, let the Christian take heed against these lies, and shelter in the fact that the treasure of God is not found in this world, but is reserved for the faithful in the life to come.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Concerning the RINO problem - that is exactly what the slate of the three front-runners (plus McCain) has to offer us.

Fred Thompson, who as a second-tier candidate along with McCain, may have energized himself way too late to do anything good now... but if Americans were to wake up and truly desire the candidate who is hands down, the only true, consistent conservative that is remotely electable, they will choose Fred.

Fred: has the long tusks of a mature bull elephant, not a broken-horn RINO.

For those of you who listen to Laura Ingraham, Fred will be doing an appearance on her show today in the second hour. I'm interested in seeing if this sudden firing-up of Fred is going to be an ongoing thing until Jan. 3.

[Fred Beloit]

If it were Fred or Newt, seek, who would you support?

[Phoenix]

Newt.

'seek' in flames clothing..... :)

[TheSpartan]

Like Reagan, Fred supported abortion until it was politically expedient to NOT support abortion.

[seekeronos]

"Fred or Newt?"

Hmmm. Not an easy choice given both are rocksteady conservatives. I'd probably stay with Fred.

I'd say that Newt is probably the more telegenic and polished (not necessarily mediagenic - there is a difference, I believe, between what gets taped and what makes it onto the air) and the one more capable of debating and thinking on his feet. The flip side of this is that Newt might be more given to pandering slightly to the constituency, although certainly nowhere near approaching the level of sycophancy as bad as that embarrassment to the cloth Huckabee has to the Christian community.

[seekeronos]

Fred on the other hand, is much more deliberate, and less given to spur-of-the-moment reactions to challenges that might not be best played without some more thought. Hence Fred's appearance of deferring answers with a sort of a "I don't know, but I'll find out more..." reply. Of course, the MSM doesn't like that either, as evidenced by Carolyn Washburn's schoolmarmish attempt to pigeonhole the candidates into simply pat answers (which Fred capably deflected). This might be a reflection of his upbringing as well - he speaks the unvarnished truth and leaves it for you to decide whether or not to run with it. He is a credit to Tennesseans, I think, because of my experience with some others of whom I have noted to be as forthright in their speech and general behaviour.

Not counting certain, erm, mis-steps on Newt's account... I'd say that he has a very firm grasp on where we need to go as a nation, especially on the key areas of foreign policy and free trade. In short, he is a very intelligent and capable man - but perhaps not yet ready for the oval office

Fortunately, I am not faced with such a choice now - I think Newt needs sometime to cool off of the things that beset him during his tenure as Speaker, and probably will be ready for a POTUS run by 2016. Hopefully, discretion and greater wisdom will also attend his future maturity, provided that he learns from his earlier missteps.

[seekeronos]

"--- Like Reagan, Fred supported abortion until it was politically expedient to NOT support abortion. ---"

My dear Spartan, let us not obfuscate the details with clever wording. I don't think that Fred (or Reagan) were pro-choice activists, much less actively supporters of Roe v. Wade.

It would be more accurate to say that Fred (and Reagan as well) were largely indifferent to the issue of abortion, until they realized that a baby's life is precious indeed. For Fred, it was one of his children's sonograms that woke him up.

As for political expediency, perhaps so: that is a reflection of the mind of most Americans not caring much for the murder of the unborn.