Cruz vs. Trump: Not even a contest ~ By Star Parker

Star Parker

Star Parker: It takes a leader that's 'a little bit of a maniac' to turn things around

I am afraid that in this rare time, I may have to contradict Star's title to this column, which is "Cruz vs. Trump: Not even a contest." You see, there is just a little hint of misinformation, at least for some that haven't paid enough attention. There are some... no, wait, that should be MANY Republicans that believe there is no contest: Donald Trump is their guy! No contest.

However, Star isn't writing this as a Trump supporter, but as somebody that sees Ted Cruz as a true contender for that Republican Party nomination.  Star explains why SHE feels that Cruz would be a much better President, with his values still intact, and thus making him a better leader, by example, to turn around the decline of America. Yes, her case is about values, and I can not deny that fact. Here is how Star put it:

Now, with our economy growing well below historic average, with our national debt equal to the size of our entire economy, with Medicare and Social Security insolvent to the tune, by some measures, of $100 trillion, with the American family in shambles and almost half our babies being born to unwed mothers, you have to be on another planet, or a Democrat, not to know America is in decline.

But it takes a leader that’s “a little bit of a maniac” to take on turning this big ship around. It takes someone who cares more about country than about self to stand and fight against an entrenched status quo.

Ted Cruz has stood courageously alone since his first day in the Senate, shining light on what is wrong: about growing debt, about Obamacare, about taxpayer funds going to Planned Parenthood, about immigration. Donald Trump today is reaping the harvest of public awareness Ted Cruz has been sowing for years. Trump should be thanking Ted Cruz.

Please understand that I am not posting this column by Star Parker as an endorsement for Ted Cruz, nor am I predicting that Cruz will be the Republican nominee. I'm just the messenger, telling you what a columnist and author, that happens to be a black female, thinks about the top contenders for the 2016 GOP nomination.

What I will say is that I believe the Republican nomination is now between Ted Cruz and Donald Trump. As for me, I'm weighing all the information about both candidates, the good and the bad. I pay attention to what the MSM says about them, because the Democrat rhetoric will echo the leftist media in the general election next Fall. Just to give the liberal media and DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wassername something to really worry about, maybe the solution is to have Trump and Cruz on the ticket. Hillary wouldn't have a prayer! Just sayin'...

*    *    *    *

Cruz vs. Trump: Not even a contest

New polling shows Ted Cruz picking up major steam and looking very serious in challenging Donald Trump's leadership in the Republican presidential candidate field. A Bloomberg News/Des Moines Register poll shows Cruz now leading in Iowa. A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal national poll shows Cruz jumping up 12 points from 10 percent in late October.…

Trump followers turn nasty on me ~ By Michael Brown

Dr. Michael Brown

Michael Brown shares vitriolic responses to his opinion of candidate

The Republican Caucus here in Iowa is in less than two months. In my vigilant pursuit of the wisdom to make the right choice about which candidate I will support, I came across this column by Dr. Michael Brown. It really struck me that my thoughts were reflected so well in the following excerpt:

As I’ve said repeatedly, there’s much to like about Donald Trump, and it appears that there are certain things he could do well as a president. And under no circumstances could I vote for any of the current Democratic candidates.

But when I see the irrational response of so many of his supporters, coupled with their demonizing of those who oppose him (along with, often, the demonizing of the other candidates), this only heightens my concerns.

I will certainly pray for Donald Trump and for God’s best for America. At the same time, I will raise concerns as I see them, since my goal is to see our nation blessed.

If you actually read the whole column, which would be a wise thing to do, you'll read about the nasty comments from the Trump followers that Dr. Michael Brown received. As I'm finding out, many of my friends and associates are favoring Donald Trump. I have not experienced any vitriol due to my lack of fealty to the Trump cause.  The truth is, I have not decided on who I will support in the Iowa Caucus.  I will avoid having the Trump followers turning nasty on me, because they're going to want my vote and they know they better behave and schmooze me for their cause.  Just sayin'...

*    *    *    *

Trump followers turn nasty on me

I knew that there would be a strong backlash when I raised concerns about evangelical Christians supporting Donald Trump as the Republican presidential candidate. (I did this by video and column.) But it is the nature of the attacks that concerns me, since it appears that for some staunch Trump supporters, you cannot be a strong…

It's right and wrong, stupid! ~ By Joseph Farah

Joseph Farah warns conservatives and tea partiers that our country's problems are not just economic, and those problems are not going to be solved without involving moral values. The phrase, "It's the economy, stupid," is not going to help us keep our freedom without also keeping God's Law and knowing right and wrong.

The following is a quote from Russell Kirk, who "is considered one of the great intellects of the modern American conservative movement:"

"Men and nations are governed by moral laws; and those laws have their origin in a wisdom that is more than human – in divine justice. At heart, political problems are moral and religious problems. The wise statesman tries to apprehend the moral law and govern his conduct accordingly. We have a moral debt to our ancestors, who bestowed upon us our civilization, and a moral obligation to the generations who will come after us. This debt is ordained of God. We have no right, therefore, to tamper impudently with human nature or with the delicate fabric of our civil social order."

~ Russell Kirk, in his book, "The Essence of Conservatism"

It's right and wrong, stupid!

JOSEPH FARAH

By Joseph Farah

December 10, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

I think it was the always insightful James Carville who made famous the phrase, "It's the economy, stupid," during the 1992 presidential election.

It shouldn't surprise that a liberal Democrat, with no discernible spiritual or moral bearings whatsoever, would make such a well-remembered plea to sheer materialism and political pragmatism.

What is shocking is the way so many Republicans and "conservatives" – and even some tea-party activists – are today embracing that Carville-ism in their approach to a political agenda to set America back on a course to liberty and self-governance.

After all, Democrats, "liberals," "progressives" and socialists of all stripes believe, for the most part, that the universe is solely comprised of matter. Everything is just stuff. This was the basis for the Communist Manifesto. Karl Marx believed economics was everything. There was no Creator above. There was no design in the universe – just matter and billions of years of random events that led to what we see all around us.

Surely that's not what Republicans and "conservatives" believe – or, at least, it shouldn't be.

Yet, some of the most prominent Republican and "conservative" leaders and organizations in America today are buying into that moronic lie: "It's the economy, stupid!"

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Planned Parenthood, Marxism, and Hollywood: How the Left corrupted morality with the Free Love Movement

By John Kubicek

May 16, 2010

I was just about to post a column in this space written by Patrice Lewis called, "Keep your pants on, America!", but I made a decision not to. The reason for that decision was not because I was uncomfortable with the content and subject of the article - or that you might be - but because I thought of a different angle to take. (Well, Patrice, at least you inspired me tonight!)

It was a youtube video that Patrice had linked to in her column that I found to be very disturbing. Again, it wasn't because of the content or subject, but because it reminded me of who Planned Parenthood is. Before I explain further, you need to see this video. (Parents: Please divert the attention of any small children elsewhere before you begin watching this):

Video provided by cbrsw

Now, if you noticed in the video as I did, the characters obviously representing pro-life Christians are depicted as sinister, and they display their protests against abortion and ministry against promiscuity as being evil. Keep in mind that the cartoon in this video was apparently used by a Planned Parenthood affiliate in San Francisco, CA. for "educational" (propaganda) purposes.

Here is a brief snippet about Planned Parenthood from Wikipedia that I found:

Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), commonly shortened to Planned Parenthood, is the U.S. affiliate of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) and one of its larger members. PPFA provides reproductive health and maternal and child health services. Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Inc. (PPAF) is a related organization that lobbies the U.S. political system for pro-choice legislation, comprehensive sex education, and access to affordable health care. (Emphasis my own)

Planned Parenthood was initially formed in 1916 by Margaret Sanger. Sanger "was an American birth control activist, advocate of eugenics, and the founder of the American Birth Control League." Her religion? Atheist. But get this: "Sanger was also an avowed socialist, blaming what she saw as the evils of contemporary capitalism for the unsatisfactory conditions of young white working-class women. Her very personal views on this issue are evident in the last pages of "What Every Girl Should Know."

Now, I don't know about you, but when I hear that somebody is a socialist, the chances are, I figure that they are also Marxist. This would most certainly apply to Sanger, I believe. And, here is why:

Marxist feminism is a sub-type of feminist theory which focuses on the dismantling of capitalism as a way to liberate women. Marxist feminism states that private property, which gives rise to economic inequality, dependence, political confusion and ultimately unhealthy social relations between men and women, is the root of women's oppression. (Emphasis my own)

And if that didn't convince you, what I also found on Wikipedia was this:

Radical feminism, which emerged in the 1970s, also took issue with Marxist feminism. Radical feminist theorists stated that modern society and its constructs (law, religion, politics, art, etc) are the product of males and therefore have a patriarchal character. According to those who subscribe to this view, the best solution for women's oppression would be to treat patriarchy not as a subset of capitalism but as a problem in its own right (see identity politics). Thus eliminating women's oppression means eliminating male domination in all its forms. (Emphasis my own)

So, basically, what the Marxists want people to believe is that women must not be oppressed by men... They must be "empowered." And here is what Patrice Lewis wrote about that in her column referred to above:

"For the first time in human history," says Letty Cottin Pogrebin, a founding editor of Ms. Magazine, "a woman could control her sexuality and determine her readiness for reproduction by swallowing a pill smaller than an aspirin. Critics warned that the Pill would spawn generations of loose, immoral women; what it spawned was generations of empowered women who are better equipped to make rational choices about their lives."


Empowered, that's it. Women acting like rutting cattle are empowered.

Okay, I believe that I've shown the relationship between Planned Parenthood and Marxism, but what does Hollywood have to do with this? Well, let's put it this way. When I was young child, born in the early 1950's, I loved the movies at the theatre. Disney movies were of course my favorite, but anything with John Wayne or movies like "The Longest Day" (war movies) were always a winner in my eyes. They were wholesome. And even "PT-109" about John F. Kennedy's experience in WWII was brilliant, and made him appear to be a hero (in contrast to John Kerry's military experience). That movie was in stark contrast to the promiscuity that ended up being what defined President Kennedy.

And it wasn't just at the movie theaters that things were so wholesome in my early childhood years. The television shows were pretty conservative at that time, too. The Mom and Dad (husband and wife, not just man and woman) slept in separate beds.

And then, in the mid-60's, it happened. Hollywood became "Hollyweird." Movies began to change ever so slightly. It took a while longer for TV to make the leap, but that was because of FCC regulations. Well, anyway, my parents didn't allow me to even go to James Bond (with Sean Connery) movies in my pre-teenage years. I was around 14 or 15 when I finally got to go to one of them, which was "Thunderball." Looking back, I can see why they didn't allow me to go, and I am surprised they ever allowed me to see one. Anyway, James Bond was always able to "get the girl" and though they didn't show any sexual scenes, you pretty much had an idea of what was going to happen or did happen, if you get my drift. And here is the thing about that: James Bond wasn't getting it on with a spouse, but always single, attractive women. Darn that Hollywood, they were starting the movement towards more and more risque flicks in a very covert way... Though body parts weren't displayed, it was the idea that sex with strangers was now okay.

It wasn't long before I had my driver's license, and was able to borrow Dad's car so I could go to the drive-in theaters with my buddies. It all started so innocent, as one of the first movies I went to with my friends was "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly." Sure, a little violent, as were the Dirty Harry movies, but Clint Eastwood always got the bad guys. No problem. But it wasn't long before other movies that weren't quite so wholesome became more of the norm at the drive-ins. Oh, wow, those films that showed bare breasts soon became the biggest hits among the teenage boys.

All the while, there was another social change going on. Viet Nam, which inspired The Hippie movement. The flower children. The love child. The psychedelic painted up VW buses. Communes. Free love. Yes, all of this was happening about the same time that Hollywood began to make movies that didn't exactly portray Christian and family values. And do you think that maybe the leftists/progressives/Socialists in Hollywood didn't influence the change? Ya think? After all, don't forget, Hollyweird IS on the "left coast."

And now we see what the progressive social changes have done for America, and the world, for that matter. A high divorce rate. Millions upon millions of abortions. Women with babies and never in wedlock. A lack of morals. Bill Clinton... But I digress.

The Marxists have all but arrived at their ultimate end game. They now have their guy in the Oval Room, a Marxist and his minions running the White House and at least half of Congress, not to mention all of the progressive bureaucrats entrenched in the government system, many of whom are unionized. And don't forget the indoctrination system of the public schools, where there is all of that "sexual education" going on.

But now, here is the question I really wanted to ask while in the process of writing this: Is there any way that we can go back to how it used to be? Yeah, I know, that's a pretty depressing thought, isn't it.

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Profits derived from your purchases
will help me to attend tea party rallies,
(especially the one in Las Vegas, on July 15-17)!

Why your worldview matters ~ By Greg Laurie

Greg does a great job explaining how our worldview determines how we live our lives. When there are no moral absolutes, then that is a worldview where moral relativism gives people a freedom from all restraint. And we see where that has taken this once God-loving country.

As a nation, we no longer accept the truths our Founding Fathers did. Instead, what we have today is moral relativism, the belief that says there are no moral absolutes, and there is no right or wrong, no good or evil. Moral relativism teaches that we are all products of the evolutionary process, there is no God and no plan or purpose for our lives, and we all have our own truth. It teaches that we are all basically good inside, and if we do go bad, it is because we are products of our environment. It is the complete freedom from all restraint.

The funny thing about people who accept moral relativism is they are very tolerant of everyone except people who have absolute beliefs. If you dare to disagree with moral relativism and instead believe in right and wrong, then you are labeled as insensitive, intolerant, bigoted and narrow-minded. And if you dare to believe in the Bible as absolute truth, then you are imposing your puritanical, repressive value system on others.

By Greg Laurie

Posted: March 27, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

It is a different world today than when I became a pastor 35 years ago. I cannot think of a time in which there has been more biblical illiteracy than there is now. I am not just talking about an ignorance of the Bible in general in our culture today; there is an ignorance of Scripture in the church.

For years now, there has been a trend to move away from biblical exposition in churches. And now we are seeing the result of this in unprecedented biblical illiteracy. Author and researcher George Barna has said, "The Christian body in America is immersed in a crisis of biblical illiteracy." A study Barna conducted revealed that less than one out of every 10 believers possess a biblical worldview as the basis for their decision-making. Barna also found that the most widely known "verse" among adults and teen believers is "God helps those that help themselves" – yet it is not found in the Bible.

We all have a worldview, formed by our culture, upbringing and education, as well as the books we read and the media we take in. And a worldview is comprehensive, affecting every area of life, from morality to money, from politics to art.

So the question is not whether you have a worldview. It is, what kind of worldview do you have?

Francis Schaeffer, in "How Should We Then Live?" wrote, "As Christians, we are not to know the right worldview, the worldview that tells us the truth of what is, but consciously to act upon that worldview so as to influence society in all its parts and facets across the whole spectrum of life, as much as we can to the extent of our individual and collective ability."

Specifically, what is the worldview a Christian should have? Simply put, there is a living God, and He has revealed himself in Scripture. Therefore, we as Christians believe in absolute truth, which comes from God. And that truth is found in the Bible. It is not about what we feel or what is popular or cool. It is about what is true.

This worldview will affect the way we see the world and life in general. As C. S. Lewis said, "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."

Americans have never been more spiritual, yet more immoral. A 2009 poll found that people in the U.S. are more interested in faith and spirituality than they are in Christianity. One expert said, "Americans increasingly want to shape their own faith experience" – what he calls "concoct[ing] a uniquely personal brand of faith."

And why not? In the age of the iPod, the iPhone, the iMac and now the iPad, Americans want an iFaith and an iGod. With these, they can control the home screen. They can write their own programs or apps, customizing them to their own liking. They can keep the parts they like, such as love, forgiveness and heaven, while hitting delete on what they don't like, such as hell, judgment and righteousness.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Be sure to check out johnny2k's Powered By the Lord Selection! 
(still under reconstruction)

New paradigm – conservatives vs. progressives ~ By Pat Boone

Okay, after reading this great column today, I would have to say that I'm pretty sure that Pat Boone must be watching or listening to Glenn Beck. He knows and understands a great deal about what I've learned about the Progressive movement that began in the late 19th Century. So, it is my hope that this post will help many people be aware of the Conservative vs. Progressive paradigm. This is vitally important information!

The new phenomenon, the new paradigm in politics, is no longer the political party. For the most part, it's the widening gap between conservatives and "progressives." Conservatives in both parties (and many in no party) are beginning to roar, to become aware of the trends and to demand a return to the U.S. Constitution as our political bible. "Progressives," as they call themselves – including the president, Secretary of State Clinton, John McCain's daughter and the majority of liberal Democrats – are clamoring for "social justice," "redistribution of wealth" and government control of virtually everything, so that all inhabitants, even illegal aliens, have "rights" to education, health care, retirement benefits, vacations, housing, creature comforts and most everything – except individual liberty.

By Pat Boone

Posted: March 13, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Nation will go to war against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in many parts of the world. But all this is only the first of the birth pains, with more to come.

Then you will be arrested, persecuted, and killed. You will be hated all over the world because you are my followers. And many will turn away from me and betray and hate each other.

And many false prophets will appear and will deceive many people. Sin will be rampant everywhere, and the love of many will grow cold.

– Jesus in Matthew 24, describing society before the end comes

Now the Holy Spirit tells us clearly that in the last times some will turn away from the true faith; they will follow deceptive spirits and teachings that come from demons. These people are hypocrites and liars, and their consciences are dead.

– the Apostle Paul in 1 Timothy 4, doing the same thing

A very big majority of the American people believe the Bible is the inspired Word of the Living God. They – I should say "we" – believe devoutly that God knows all things, including what the future holds for all of us. And He cares enough to give us definite warning signs about the windup of human history.

When Jesus' closest disciples asked Him specifically about what would signify the coming end of all things, He gave them the above signs, among many others. Surely I'm not alone in seeing all of these things happening now, and in increasing frequency.

And yes, I'm aware that in these and other well-known passages, Jesus is speaking primarily about spiritual corruption and decadence and immorality. But those things aren't confined to church circles, among former Bible believers. Corruption and decay are contagious; they spread everywhere, and they create rot wherever they gain entrance – certainly including politics, government, the economy and popular culture.

In fact, I see this contagion creeping like a plague into every area of modern life.

A tidal wave of immorality is sweeping through what we still call "entertainment." Anybody who watches TV in the evening will find it difficult, if not impossible, to find something that can pass as "family" fare. Almost every show, drama or comedy, is devoted constantly to the sordid, the immoral, the deviant, the violent and, increasingly, the intentionally horrifying. Demons and devils and vampires are "the in thing," and teenagers are making idols of the young actors who portray them. Same with the movies that we frequent, we honor, we make profitable and export to the rest of the world.

Time-honored guidelines, moral traditions, social taboos – all have just about evaporated, not even considered much anymore. Scandals and revelations and shattered images are so commonplace, in virtually every area of life, that we forget them almost as soon as they occur. Marriage itself, as a compact between a man and a woman, is under incessant attack, and over half of adult women in America aren't married now anyway!

The biggest teachers unions are promoting the tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality, right down into grade school, where our kids shouldn't even be thinking about anything like that. Why? Because union officials who think like President Obama's "safe school czar," Kevin Jennings, are determined that all the old taboos against sexual aberrance must be erased, and that our children must grow up without any reservations about anything sexual – possibly including pedophilia.

More and more, the old distinctions like Democrat and Republican seem meaningless. It's harder and harder to tell the two apart in terms of policy, representation of the people, loyalty to their oaths and behavior in Washington. The political platforms are largely determined by reading polls and research about how the people are likely to vote – and not by reasoned moral and constitutional priorities. There are exceptions, of course, and thankfully, there are still men and women who put conscience and morality and right thinking above political expediency, and they're still trying to make government really responsive to the needs and desires of the people who elected them. But they're like salmon swimming upstream against the tide of sellouts – whether confused or opportunistic – in both parties.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Persuasion, not prohibition ~ By John Stossel

There are many people that will agree completely with John Stossel's libertarian views. There will also be many that will vehemently disagree with what he writes in this column. I have found that the ones that would disagree the most either have a view point that they are superior to people with "lower morals," or they are progressives that believe the government - (and those that run it) - knows more than people, and thus should control behavior.

In a free country, we consenting adults should be able to do whatever we want with our bodies as long as we don't hurt anyone else. People who don't like what we do have every right to complain about our behavior, to boycott, to picket, to embarrass us. Bless the critics. They make us better people by getting us to think about what's moral. Let them mock and shame. But shaming is one thing – government force is another. Prohibition means we empower the state to send out people with guns to force people to do what the majority says is moral. That's not right.


And it doesn't even work.

By John Stossel

Posted: March 03, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

"It's a free country."

That's a popular saying – and true in many ways. But for a free country, America does ban a lot of things that are perfectly peaceful and consensual. Why is that?

Here are some things you can't do in most states of the union: rent your body to someone for sex, sell your kidney, take recreational drugs. The list goes on. I'll discuss American prohibitions tomorrow night at 8 and 11 p.m. Eastern time (and again on Friday at 10) on my Fox Business program.

The prohibitionists say their rules are necessary for either the public's or the particular individual's own good. I'm skeptical. I think of what Albert Camus said: "The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants." Prohibition is force. I prefer persuasion. Government force has nasty unintended consequences.

I would think that our experience with alcohol prohibition would have taught America a lesson. Nearly everyone agrees it was a disaster. It didn't stop people from drinking, but it created new and vicious strains of organized crime. Drug prohibition does that now.

The prohibitionists claim that today's drugs are far more dangerous than alcohol.

But is that true? Or is much of what you think you know ... wrong?

I believed the Drug Enforcement Administration's claim that drugs like crack and meth routinely addict people on first use.

But Jacob Sullum, who wrote "Saying Yes," says, "If you look at the government's own data about patterns of drug use, it clearly is not true."

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

2 ways to spur a Republican renaissance ~ By Star Parker

From WorldNetDaily

By Star Parker Posted: November 07, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 RNC Chairman Michael Steele and the New York Yankees can look back on a good week. Maybe Steele deserves extra credit. No one was writing obituaries a year ago for the Yankees as was the case for the Republican Party. Now we have a different picture. Borrowing from the words of Mark Twain, reports of the death of the Republican Party were greatly exaggerated. The operative question today for Mr. Steele and his party, in the wake of winning governorships in Virginia and New Jersey, both Obama states in 2008, is "Now what?" Will voter discontent that led to these Republican victories be parlayed into a genuine Republican renaissance? As independent voters move away from Democrats and lean back toward Republicans, which is what happened in Virginia and New Jersey, and what polling over the year has shown to be happening nationwide, will Republicans build a solid new tent? Will they rebuild their party with values critical for restoring a sick nation to health? In order to genuinely rebuild, Republicans must successfully take on two big challenges – one internal and one external. First, a notion that has divided the party – that free-market economics and the social "values" agenda are separate cards to be played – must be purged. The more libertarian stream – Republicans whose principal concerns are limited government, low taxes and free markets – have viewed Christian social conservatism as dead weight in the party. This is a mistake. Christian conservatives, on the other hand, with legitimate concerns about the moral framework of the nation, concerns about the integrity of the American family and about the ongoing abortion holocaust, have given shorter shrift to the importance of constitutionally limited government and free markets. These two streams within the Republican Party that have been flowing in parallel must be channeled into one powerful river. It is not either-or. Both are essential. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

Why I would like to support Barack Obama

I would love to be unencumbered by thought, morality, and a desire for liberty... all of which would be required in order to support Obammunism. read more | digg story | Go directly to the story by Sam Pierce