#1492 SB SUNDAY SPECIAL: "14 Inspiring Quotes About Faith From [TODAY'S] 2 Super Bowl Quarterbacks"

"14 INSPIRING QUOTES ABOUT FAITH FROM [TODAY'S] 2 SUPER BOWL QUARTERBACKS" - Leah Jessen/ Feb.05, 2016 / http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/05/14-inspiring-quotes-about-faith-from-2-quarterbacks-who-will-face-off-in-super-bowl/ [AS I SEE IT: My favorite quarterback for many years now has been Peyton Manning. It's then so secret I'll be cheering for the Denver Broncos today in the Super Bowl. I've never been sure about Peyton's faith and so this article is very reassuring. Also, despite his sometimes over-the-top chest pumping which I'm never crazy about, because of his faith, I suppose I could get used to Cam Newton in the future. Maybe. (My #2 is still the Seahawks' QB Russell Wilson.) P.S. - The Broncos back-up quarterback is also a Christian. P.S.S. - Of course, you can be sure there are a number of other Christian players on each team. - Stan]

Quarterbacks Cam Newton (right) and Peyton Manning (left) may be on different teams, but they share beliefs. (Photo of Manning: Nell Redmond/UPI/Newscom and Photo of Newton: Ron Chenoy/USA Today Sports/Newscom)

The Denver Broncos and Carolina Panthers have more in common than just playing each other in Super Bowl 50 this weekend in Santa Clara, California: Both teams have quarterbacks who are men of faith.  

As football fans gather Sunday with family and friends (that may or may not only watch the commercials and Coldplay), quarterbacks Peyton Manning and Cam Newton will strive to put their best foot forward. Players from both the Broncos and the Panthers have previously been photographed praying on the field. Below are faith-inspired quotes from quarterbacks Manning and Newton.

At age 39, the Broncos quarterback Peyton Manning will be the oldest quarterback to start in a Super Bowl game. During his career he has been a five-time MVP for the NFL and this will be Manning’s fourth Super Bowl (he has one Super Bowl win under his belt from when the Indianapolis Colts beat the Chicago Bears in the 2006 season). He’s the first quarterback in history to reach the Super Bowl with four different coaches and to take two different teams to the Super Bowl multiple times each.

Manning says:
1. “My faith has been number one since I was 13 years old and heard from the pulpit on a Sunday morning in New Orleans a simple question: ‘If you died today, are you 100 percent sure you’d go to heaven?’” Manning wrote in his book called “Manning: A Father, His Sons and a Football Legacy” (which he authored with his dad Archie, a former NFL quarterback, and John Underwood).
2. He wrote later in the book: “And I committed my life to Christ, and that faith has been most important to me ever since.”
3. “Some players get more vocal about it—the Reggie Whites, for example—and some point to Heaven after scoring a touchdown and praise God after games. I have no problem with that. But I don’t do it, and don’t think it makes me any less a Christian. I just want my actions to speak louder,” he wrote in the same book. Adding:
4. “My faith doesn’t make me perfect, it makes me forgiven, and provides me the assurance I looked for half my life ago.”
5. “For me generally it had always been the big four: faith, family, friends, and football…as important as football is to me, it can never be higher than fourth,” he said in “Manning.”
6. Also writing: “Ah, but do I ‘pray for victory?’ No, except as a generic thing. I pray to keep both teams injury free, and personally, that I use whatever talent I have to the best of my ability.”
7. “There were a lot of firsts, a lot of firsts for me this year. It’s weird in your 18th season to have so many firsts. But when you sign up to play, you sign up for everything,” he told the The Denver Post in January. He added: “You learn about yourself and how you handle it. That’s been my theme all year: Just keep being a pro. I’ve been through a lot of stuff … but that’s what I drew on during this time: Be a pro. Handle it. And keep the faith.”

Carolina Panthers quarterback Cam Newton, 26, won college football’s biggest award, the Heisman Trophy, in 2010. He went on to become the Carolina Panthers’ first overall pick in the 2011 NFL draft and became the NFL’s first rookie to throw for more than 400 yards in his first game.

Newton says:
1. “I just can’t stop smiling because God has his hands on me,” Newton said after a near fatal truck accident in 2014. “I’m on somebody’s fantasy league. And I think it’s the man upstairs. It’s great to walk away from something like that.”
2. “Me being a religious person, God is good. I’m lucky to be standing in front of you guys.”
3. “Life is too short for you not to appreciate it to the fullest; through the good and the bad! I thank you to the people who have been keeping me in their prayers and well wishes for a speedy recovery,” he wrote on Instagram. “I am appreciative for the many great things God has given me to be thankful for. It’s an old cliché statement but it says ‘God works in mysterious ways!’”
4. He added on Instagram: “So if you read this, I challenge you to live life to the fullness everyday! Love the people who are close to you (and don’t be afraid to tell them as well)! Forgive ‘whoever’ for ‘whatever’ they did! Trust when I tell you that life is to short for you not to do those things!”
4. “It’s just a God thing. I thank God every single day. I’m just His instrument and He’s using me on a consistent basis daily,” Newton said in 2011 after winning a college football national championship game.
5. “He’s using me to extend his word. I’m a prime example of how God can turn something that was bad into something that was very great.”
6. At the Super Bowl media day Monday night, Newton said he was: “A Super Bowl quarterback, a Heisman Trophy winner, a first-round pick, but more importantly God’s servant.” He went on to thank God and said: “I’m in a position where a lot of people critique every single thing that I do, but yet I’ll be the first to tell you that I’ve made mistakes and whether you’re from Atlanta, whether you’re from California, whether you’re from Georgia, Florida, wherever you’re from, you can be international, you could see that a person made mistakes but yet didn’t linger on those mistakes, and I still had dreams and aspirations and still conquered them all.”

While Manning and Newton are both sure to have their game faces on this weekend, the two have spoken humbly of each other this week.

“Anytime you get compared to Peyton Manning, you must be doing something right. I take it for what it’s worth,” Newton told reporters Monday. He said it is a “tremendous honor to be even mentioned and affiliated with the face of the league.”

As for Manning, he says Newton will be the future face of the NFL. He told reporters Monday about Newton: “He’s just had this incredible year. There’s no doubt in my mind he’s going to be the MVP on Saturday night. What he’s done in the short time being an NFL quarterback, he’s been awesome. He’s been awesome. That’s the best word I can think of. “He’s been a great passer, he’s been a great runner, he’s been a great leader. You don’t go 17-1 as a starting quarterback without being awesome. And that’s what he’s been this year without a doubt.”

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Leah Jessen is a news reporter for The Daily Signal and graduate of The Heritage Foundation's Young Leaders Program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"After 50 Years, Super Bowl Still Offers Platform for Faith" - http://www1.cbn.com/content/after-50-years-super-bowl-still-offers-platform-faith
Related: How His Faith Ended His Football Career - "Coach Kennedy Shares the ‘Hardest Thing’ About Losing His Job" - Kelsey Harknesss / Jan.26,2016;
http://dailysignal.com/2016/01/26/coach-kennedy-shares-the-hardest-thing-about-losing-his-job/ [Includes several video clips]

#1491 (2/6) PRO-LIFE SAT: "20 Planned Parenthood Clinics Have Harvested Body Parts From Aborted Babies, Here’s the Proof"

"20 PLANNED PARENTHOOD CLINICS HAVE HARVESTED BODY PARTS FROM ABORTED BABIES, HERE'S THE PROOF" -  Micaiah Bilger, Feb. 3, 2016| http://www.lifenews.com/2016/02/03/20-planned-parenthood-clinics-have-harvested-body-parts-from-aborted-babies-heres-the-proof/
 
In October, Planned Parenthood told the New York Times that only two of its health centers nationwide supply “fetal tissue” to researchers – one in California and one in Washington state.
But a new report from the Family Research Council indicates that 20 of the abortion business’s affiliates across the country were involved in harvesting aborted babies’ body parts for researchers in the past five years.

The report, “Investigating Planned Parenthood and Research Using Aborted Babies,” provides a detailed summary of what has been revealed about Planned Parenthood’s aborted baby harvesting practices since the Center for Medical Progress began releasing its undercover videos last summer.
“We are shedding light not just on Planned Parenthood’s appalling business practices, but also on their corporate and academic allies which benefit from baby organ harvesting,” said FRC Center for Human Dignity Director Arina Grossu, who authored the report. “This research is a starting point in the investigation of Planned Parenthood’s activities and the involvement of taxpayer funds.”

The report documents 20 Planned Parenthood affiliates that have participated in aborted baby body harvesting programs in the past five years, as well as the receiving groups. These include abortion affiliates in California, Texas, Colorado, Washington, Michigan, Wisconsin, Washington, D.C., New York, Utah, Oregon and possibly the affiliate in southern New England.

One of the affiliates highlighted in the report is Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, based in Houston, Texas. The abortion affiliate has been in the spotlight recently after a grand jury, tasked with investigating its aborted baby harvesting program, indicted undercover investigators David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt of the Center for Medical Progress instead.

The report links to records showing that the Texas abortion group participates in aborted baby body harvesting, evidence that the Texas grand jury appears to have ignored. The report also mentions the abortion group’s connection to the University of Texas Medical Branch, which appears to have bought aborted babies’ body parts from the group, LifeNews reported last week.

In the report are details about the number of Planned Parenthood facilities that perform medical and surgical abortions and how late they do them. Readers also can find information about state abortion limits, the states where investigations have occurred and defunding efforts are taking place, the Congressional investigations and a list of the biotech companies that act as middlemen in the sale of baby parts and some of their consumers.

In the conclusion of the report, Grossu pointed out that taxpayers should be concerned, not just about the callous destruction of unborn babies, but also about the millions of taxpayer dollars that funded human fetal tissue research. In 2014 alone, the National Institute of Health spent $76 million on human fetal tissue research “with grants to more than 50 universities, including Columbia, Harvard, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford, Yale and the Universities of California in Berkeley, Irvine, Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco. It expects to spend the same amount in 2015 and 2016,” the report states.

“Taxpayers have a right to know how these baby parts were obtained, which Planned Parenthood affiliates and other abortion facilities were involved, as well as which biotech companies and end consumers profited from the sale and use of aborted baby parts,” it continues.

Pointing to the mounting evidence against Planned Parenthood, Grossu called for continued investigation of the abortion giant and prosecution in cases where they are found in violation of the law. “The investigation must look into possible violations of current laws against the sale of baby parts, performing partial birth abortions, and killing babies born alive after abortion,” she said. “This is especially true of Planned Parenthood affiliates that are or were involved in the harvesting and sale of baby parts, biotech companies which sell aborted baby parts, and end consumers which are often funded with taxpayer money to do research for federal entities such as the NIH and FDA.”

Several state investigations already have revealed wrong-doing at Planned Parenthood abortion clinics since the Center for Medical Progress began releasing its videos. Other states and a U.S. Congressional Committee are still in the process of investigating the abortion giant.

The federal law that technically prohibits the sale of aborted babies and their body parts was written by a pro-abortion Congressman decades ago and essentially spells out a process by which sellers of aborted baby body parts can meet certain criteria that allows the sales to be legal. That’s why a Colorado congressman has introduced legislation to totally ban the sales of aborted baby body parts.

[bold and italics emphasis mine]

#1490 (2/5) "Open Door Creates Draft for Women"

"OPEN DOOR CREATES DRAFT FOR WOMEN" - Tony Perkins, Washington Update, February 03, 2016;http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WA16B01&f=WU16B01

Be careful what you wish for. That's the message from Marine Corps leaders about the president's phony push for women's "equality" in the ranks. Yesterday, Senate Armed Services Committee members heard plenty of sobering testimony about the repercussions of opening up combat jobs to females -- and none should sicken Americans more than the news that drafting our girls is next.

Sixty-five hundred U.S. girls turn 18 each day -- and every one of them will be eligible for selective service if the Obama administration gets its way. Unfortunately, that's all but inevitable after Defense Secretary Ash Carter's decision to ignore the advice of his military chiefs and bring women into the most dangerous, grueling roles in the service. As our own Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin pointed out, the military can't have it both ways. When the Defense Department removed the barriers to women serving in all positions, it removed most barriers to drafting them as well. Pure equality, the Army has said, would demand it. Of course, the idea of parity probably sounds great until you're putting your daughter on a bus to boot camp. Sadly, this is just another consequence of the problem Obama created when he started using the military as a pack mule for his social agenda instead of its actual purpose: fighting and winning wars.

At yesterday's hearing, there was plenty of concern to go around, as senators listened to a stone-faced Marine Commandant, General Robert Neller, offer few reassurances about how this latest experiment would work. "We will see where the chips fall. And again, our hope is that everyone will be successful. But hope is not a course of action on the battlefield." He should know. His branch put together an exhaustive survey about the serious problems of integrating women into the infantry, only to have it ignored by the president's political appointees. Among other things, the research showed the move would devastate retention and unit effectiveness, making the Marines a less-efficient fighting machine overall. And the women, whom the Left pretends to champion, would face much more serious injuries from the physical strain and combat violence.

Yet Mabus, who's overseen seven years of the president's extremism, dismissed the findings without even reading them. That fact didn't escape Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), who blasted the Navy Secretary for downplaying the research's significance. "So you, with a straight face, make claims that the Marines' study was flawed and biased, even if you did not even go see the study being performed?" McCain went on, "I am concerned that the department has gone about things backwards," he said. "This consequential decision was made and mandated before the military services could study its implications and before any implementation plans were devised to address the serious challenges raised in the studies."

Of course, we watched this same recklessness with the Left's other crown jewel: the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Then, as now, political operatives openly rejected the opinion and authority of military leaders with battle-tested experience, who cautioned that we were opening up our troops to grave danger. Five years of sexual assaults, suicides, recruitment woes, and low morale later, we see they were right. In 2010, Congress was assured that opening the military to homosexuals wouldn't pave the way to transgender service -- another promise now broken. Yet still we're supposed to believe the Pentagon when it says that throwing women into combat wouldn't lead to gender quotas, lower standards, or decreases in readiness? Americans know better.

At the very least, Army General Mark Milley said, "It should be a national debate, and I encourage the legislative body to look at that." When it does, perhaps it should ask: what kind of nation forces its sisters, daughters, and granddaughters onto a battlefield against their will? That's not progress. It's the worst kind of cowardice. And what good is "equality" if it's only setting women up for disaster and failure? As a Marine and the father of three daughters, I think the most pro-woman decision America could make is sparing them from policies that order them into harm's way.

"The Corps' job... is to kill people and break things," wrote veteran Tom Neven in a compelling piece for the Federalist. "Every second of training is geared toward that ultimate end. It is not a plaything for social justice warriors and political hacks, especially those who have not and probably could not earn the title 'Marine' the old fashioned way." In the meantime, at least the nation is beginning to realize: nothing is a greater threat to our military than the administration in charge of it.

[bold and italics emphasis mine]

#1489 (2/4) "Why Donald Trump Threatens to Trump the Gospel"

"WHY DONALD TRUMP THREATENS THE GOSPEL" - There is something more important than our views of the controversial candidate";Mark Galli/ Jan.27, 2016;
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2016/january-web-only/why-donald-trump-threatens-to-trump-gospel.html?utm_source=ctweekly-html&utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_term=18503153&utm_content=413064807&utm_campaign=2013&start=1

A large segment of evangelicals look at Donald Trump and his followers and want to run in the opposite direction. The problem is that a lot of Trump’s followers are their brothers and sisters in Christ. Politico reported yesterday on an NBC News/Survey Monkey poll that 37 percent of white evangelical Republicans support his candidacy. Yesterday, Jerry Falwell Jr., president of Liberty University, endorsed Trump, and Dallas megachurch pastor Robert Jeffress spoke highly of him; this following Franklin Graham’s endorsement of Trump’s immigration views in December. Such evangelical support makes that first group of evangelicals really nervous.

That’s understandable given many things Trump says and supports. Like banning all Muslims from coming to America. Like shooting the families of terrorists. Like suggesting that if he himself shot someone, his fans would still rise up and rally around him.

Donald Trump sometimes acts like he’s a messiah—Ted Cruz calls it his “messiah complex.” But Trump is only a demagogue. This is not meant as a critique as much as a fact: A demagogue is “a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument.” Trump does in fact appeal to popular desires, some of which are prejudices, and he tends to scorn rational argument, even eschewing debates now.

But in large measure, Trump’s detractors are eschewing rational argument as well. Instead of presenting an argument why banning all Muslims is bad policy (why it doesn’t make demographic sense, why it will likely make terrorism worse, and so on), most just exclaim, “Unbelievable!” and “that’s Hitleresque.” Trump is rightly critiqued for fear mongering and demagoguery, but his detractors are sometimes his mirror image.

This sort of political discourse is starting to affect how evangelicals talk about Trump. A notable exception is Russell Moore. He has consistently presented a line of argument—and not just name calling. His major thesis is that Trump is immoral by Christian standards. This is a fact: from Trump’s owning of strip clubs to his bragging about sleeping around to his Nietzsche-esque notions of power. Moore believes that a leader’s moral behavior will affect his leadership, so he argues that no Christian should support a candidate like Trump. This will not convince all Christians, but at least it’s an argument grounded in the fact of Trump’s moral behavior.

Unfortunately there is little argument displayed by either side, only fearful allusions as to what will happen if Trump does or does not get elected. What’s more troubling is the talk of excommunication. After Falwell endorsed Trump yesterday, immediately some anti-Trump evangelicals started wondering if this signals a major breach in evangelicalism: “Now that Falwell Jr. and other self-described evangelicals have thrown in with Trump, I wonder if we are seeing the beginnings of another significant divergence.” This writer is only expressing in public what many evangelicals on both sides will be more and more tempted to say. “How can you be a Christian and support/critique Donald Trump?”

It brings to mind the political battles in the days of when the Relgious Right was in its ascendency. Then the bright line of Christian orthodoxy was whether you were a Democrat or a Republican, with some Christians actually wondering about the faith of those believers in the other party.

To state the obvious: The litmus test of an evangelical is not his or her stance on Donald Trump. The most decisive political act we perform is not our support for or against Trump or Cruz or Clinton or Sanders or whomever. Our most radical political act happens when we gather and worship together under the sign of the Cross—a sign of contradiction to a world that lusts for political power—bending the knee to the Lord who “brings princes to naught and reduces the rulers of the world to nothing” (Is. 40:23, NIV) on the way to establishing a political order that knows no injustice.

And just as radical in this moment, we worship our King by linking arms with men and women of all political stripes and allegiances. Why? Because we’ve been told that the dividing walls of hostility have been torn down by Christ’s death (Eph. 3). Not just dividing walls between Jews and Greeks, men and women, slave and free, but also those between liberals and conservatives, elitists and populists.

Let’s not let a wannabe prince put asunder what Christ has joined together.

Correction: The article has been amended to reflect that Robert Jeffress has not endorsed Trump. Our apologies for the confusion.

[bold and italics emphasis mine]

Mark Galli is editor of Christianity Today.

"Most Pastors Aren't Voting Trump as Primaries Approach" - Protestant church leaders are still undecided or pick other candidates, according to LifeWay Research.
Bob Smietana - Facts & Trends; 1/28/2016;
http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2016/january/donald-trump-protestant-pastors-undecided-president-iowa.html?utm_source=ctweekly-html&utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_term=18503153&utm_content=413064807&utm_campaign=2013

#1488 (2/3) "3 Questions Evangelicals Should Ask About Donald Trump"

"3 QUESTIONS EVANGELICALS SHOULD ASK ABOUT DONALD TRUMP" -  By John Stemberger, Jan. 5, 2016;
http://floridafamilyaction.org/2016/01/28/icymi-3-questions-evangelicals-should-ask-donald-trump-cnn/ [AS I SEE IT: You may notice that thus far I have refrained from posting anything regarding those running for President. HOWEVER, I find the following article (as well as the video link listed afterwards) to contain things I have not heard anywhere else, and yet I trust the source to be authoritative. (note esp. #5 under the first question!) If there is anything presented here that is inaccurate, I will be glad to note it in a future post. Otherwise, be informed. - Stan; please post this email on your Facebook page and forward it to all your family and friends and anyone you know in New Hampshire, South Carolina or Florida. P.S. - Be sure to check out my follow-up post tomorrow #1489. /Also, it will be worth several minutes of your time to check out the video clip noted at the very end of this post.](CNN)This column contains language that might be considered offensive to some readers.
----------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------
(CNN) -- We are experiencing something extraordinary in American politics: A man who has never held public office appears to have become a force of nature this election cycle, and he is achieving this, according to polls, with no small amount of support from evangelical Christians.
The really puzzling thing is that Donald Trump defies every stereotype of a candidate you would typically expect Christians to vote for.

How much does the average evangelical Christian supporting Trump know about his history? Very little, it would seem. Many are content to follow the no-nonsense persona, rather than dig into Trump's past record. Trump professes to be a Christian and says the Bible is his favorite book. While we should not judge a man's heart or motive, we can and should evaluate his words and actions. Therefore, there are three questions I believe all evangelical Christians should ask themselves before supporting Donald Trump for President.

1) What is known about Trump's personal life and morality?

If elected, Trump would be the first president to:

*Be married three times to different women, leaving each for the next woman.
*Be proud of his sexually liberalities, openly stating in his book "Think Big: Make it Happen in Business and Life" that he has had sex with with some of the "top women in the world."
*Build and own casinos, including the first American casino ever to have a strip club that allows lap dancing and an all-male revue club for women.
*Regularly use the f-word in public speeches along with other obscenities so vulgar network television would be required to bleep out these words to avoid violating Federal Communications Commission rules.
*State publicly that he has never asked for God's (or anyone else's), forgiveness and that he doesn't forgive.
*Have said about his daughter on that "if Ivanka were not my daughter, I would be dating her."
*Give America a first lady who has posed in the nude.
*Use bankruptcy laws four times for failed business dealings.
*Openly advocate for revenge, "as viciously and as violently as you can."
*Publicly call various women "dogs," "fat and ugly," "piece of a--," "pigs," "bitch," ("TrumpNation: The Art of Being The Donald," 2005) and said you "have to treat em like sh--."

2) Where does Trump stand on moral and social policy issues of concern to Christians and to which the Bible speaks to clearly? 
     On many issues, Trump is saying the right things in terms of public policy. He presents himself broadly as a conservative on abortion, same-sex marriage, radical Islam and other social issues. But one of the best indicators of a politician's future behavior is his record on issues.
     On abortion, in 1999, during a national television interview, Trump stated: "Well, I'm very pro-choice. I hate the concept of abortion. I hate it. I hate everything it stands for. I cringe when I listen to people debate the subject. But, you still, I just believe in choice." Again in 1999, Trump stated to the Associated Press, "I believe it is a personal decision that should be left to the women and their doctors."
     In his book, "The America We Deserve," Trump stated, "I support a woman's right to choose, but I am uncomfortable with the procedures." In 2011, Trump said he changed his mind on the issue of abortion but still supports abortion in the case of rape, incest and life of the mother. He also said he supports "the good aspects" of funding Planned Parenthood.
     Trump also favors gay rights and same-sex marriage laws "that guaranteed same-sex couples equal legal rights as married, heterosexual couples." Trump also opposed the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, the military's prior ban on openly gay service members.
     Gregory T. Angelo, president of the Log Cabin Republicans, an advocacy group for gay Republicans, has said of Trump, "He is one of the best, if not the best, pro-gay Republican candidates to ever run for the presidency," and that Trump would do no harm on same-sex marriage, and has a "stand-out position" on nondiscrimination legislation.
     How do we square his liberal record on social issues with his "sounding conservative?" How can we trust that what he is saying today is what he will actually do tomorrow?

3) Are the love of money and pride legitimate issues to weigh when considering support for a presidential candidate?
     First, the Bible is very clear that "the love of money" -- not money itself -- is "the root of all evil." But Donald Trump is also very clear -- he really loves money. In fact, he has reminded us over and over again, relishing and boasting in how "really rich" he is. Trump's TV show "The Apprentice" even used the O'Jays' song "For the Love of Money" as the theme song. It's not often that the Bible speaks with such clarity on what is evil. How heavily should a Christian voter considering supporting Trump take into account his love of money?
     Secondly, Scripture declares "God opposes the proud and gives grace to the humble." Proverbs says that "everyone who is proud in heart is an abomination to the Lord."
    Trump is not just proud. He is proud of being proud. But don't take my word for it. Just listen to most any speech he gives. Trump has said, "part of the beauty of me is that I'm very rich."
     All of us are sinners in need of grace. But what are we to do with a professing Christian who is openly proud and brags about his sin and who wants other Christians to trust and support him to be our next president?

I do not believe every Christian has a moral duty to only vote for Christians. In the Bible, God used even evil leaders for his purposes. But when a choice is given, should evangelical Christians choose to elect a man I believe would be the most immoral and ungodly person ever to be president of the United States?

There are times I read a verse from scripture and wonder whether God looked into the portals of time and breathed out very specific words for a certain time in history. I believe II Timothy 3 is such a verse for today: "But understand this, that in the last days terrible times will come. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people."

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

John Stemberger is an attorney and conservative leader based out of Orlando, Florida. He is a former political director of the Republican Party of Florida. For the past 10 years, Stemberger has served as president and general counsel of Florida Family Action. The views expressed in this column belong to Stemberger.
  Stemberger has written a similar article with completely different content to Tea Party leaders and other Republicans who support Trump that was published in NewsMax here:http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/questions-voter-supporting-donald-trump/2015/12/09/id/705143/A powerful and shocking video on Trump's record on the issues is only 2.5 minutes long and can be seen here: This is a MUST see./www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcUCLwWCihE

#1487 (2/2) "#OscarsSoWhite -- Biggest Fraud Since 'Hands Up, Don't Shoot'"

"#OSCARSSOWHITE -- BIGGEST FRAUD SINCE "HANDS UP, DON'T SHOOT'" - Larry Elder, |Jan 28,2016;
http://townhall.com/columnists/larryelder/2016/01/28/oscarssowhite--biggest-fraud-since-hands-up-dont-shoot-n2110881/page/full

First, the facts. Since 2000, 10 percent of Oscar nominations have gone to black actors. Blacks comprise 13 percent of the country's population, so the Oscar nominations have roughly paralleled the percentage of blacks in the U.S.

Here's how the nomination process works. There are about 6,200 voting members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. The Academy is divided into 17 branches, with the actor division -- of 1,138 members -- the largest. Actors nominate actors in each of the four categories -- lead and supporting, actor and actress -- listing up to five names ranked in order of preference. The five nominees come from the highest-ranked names with the most votes beyond a minimum threshold. So all actor members literally "write in" their personal choices.

Actors are almost all leftist Democrats, so, according to the #OscarsSoWhite narrative, the same lefties who nominated and voted for Best Actors Halle Berry, Forest Whitaker, Denzel Washington, Jamie Foxx and others reverted to "racism" in the last two years, because during that period there were no black nominees.

Director Spike Lee and actress Jada Pinkett Smith say they are boycotting this year's "all-white" Oscars, and accuse the Hollywood industry of racism. But Hollywood, unlike the Department of Motor Vehicles, consists of privately owned companies with a singular goal -- to make fare that people wish to spend their money to see. In that regard, as to black consumers, the industry succeeds spectacularly. Blacks watch, on average, two hours more of television per day than whites, according to Nielsen ratings, and blacks purchase more movie tickets than do whites, according to the Motion Picture Association of America.

Can we ask the protesters to name the bigots' names? During the bad old days of Jim Crow and segregation, the evil had names. The governor who, at his inaugural speech, bellowed, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" had a name: George Wallace. The governor who refused to allow black boys and girls to attend white public schools in Arkansas in 1957 had a name: Orval Faubus. The Birmingham, Alabama, commissioner of public safety, who turned water hoses and sicced dogs on black and white civil rights protesters in had a name: Eugene "Bull" Connor.

So who are the Hollywood racists? Is it studio chiefs? Because of the Sony hack, we learned that former co-studio head Amy Pascal considered a black man, Idris Elba, to play the next James Bond. So, apparently, she isn't the one. According to annual studies from USC's Annenberg School of the top-grossing 100 films released every year, black actors have averaged 12.7 percent of the speaking roles from 2007 through 2014 -- virtually the same as blacks' percent of the population.

As to the white actors, actresses and directors who did get nominated, a question. Which ones did not deserve it? Did they break into the homes of Academy members, carrying guns and disguised with ski masks to make the members vote the way they did? Succeeding as an actor, given the competition and the non-existent barriers to entry, is arguably a more difficult and unlikely achievement than succeeding in professional sports. Those who have made it overcame long odds and fierce competition to do so. And now that they've "made it," should they feel guilty because they're white?

More important, why does it matter whether wealthy, spectacularly lucky and fortunate blacks get or don't get nominated anyway? A black friend, a successful actor-director, answered the question this way: self-esteem of young black boys and girls. But there's a huge problem with that argument. Decades of research overwhelmingly shows that black boys and white girls have higher self-esteem than do white boys and white girls. Black girls, for example, have a much healthier attitude toward their bodies than do white girls obsessed with a wildly unrealistic Barbie-doll-type body style. Turns out blacks derive their sense of self-esteem from the same places everybody else does -- their parents, relatives, friends, teachers and other influential role models in their own communities.

This "protest" is largely driven by a rich, successful director, Spike Lee, who put his New York City mansion up for sale at $32 million in 2014. That would provide the money to hire a team of psychologists to get him over his depression. About the controversy, rapper Ice Cube points out that "Straight Outta Compton" did, in fact, get an Oscar nomination for best original screenplay. As to the #OscarsSoWhite controversy, Cube said, given the praise the movie has received, it's as if one were "crying about not having enough icing on your cake. ... It's ridiculous." Sanity -- straight outta Compton.

[bold and italics emphasis mine]
  
Larry Elder is a best-selling author and radio talk-show host. To find out more about Larry Elder, or become an "Elderado," visit www.LarryElder.com.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Do the Oscars Need Quotas?" - Brent Bozell | Jan 29, 2016;
http://townhall.com/columnists/brentbozell/2016/01/29/do-the-oscars-need-quotas-n2111461
"...The Academy tried to stuff the ballot boxes by adding hundreds of minorities to the voting body in the last year, but it wasn't enough. Quotas might be the next step. If America can't be trusted to avoid racism without quotas, why should Hollywood? It's only natural that liberal Hollywood should punish itself. The problem is that is both the oppressor and the victim. Maybe eventually someone will be infected with a case of common sense. Don't count on it. This is the world of make-believe."

#1486 (2/1)" How the Obama Administration Let ISIS Happen"

"HOW THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION LET ISIS HAPPEN" - Luke Coffey/Jan.28,2016/http://dailysignal.com/2016/01/28/how-the-obama-administration-let-isis-happen/

In 2010, after the White House failed to secure an agreement with Baghdad that would have allowed sizable U.S. forces to remain in Iraq, Obama declared the war in Iraq over. (Photo: Olivier Douliery/CNP/AdMe/SIPA)

Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter’s recent op-ed regarding the campaign against ISIS confirmed what many already knew: When confronting ISIS, the Obama administration does the bare minimum required to make it look as if it is doing something, while in reality it is doing very little.

President Barack Obama entered office with a hell-bent desire to “end wars” with no care as to how he would do this- —or to what the geo-strategic consequences might be if it was done poorly. In 2010, after the White House failed to secure an agreement with Baghdad that would have allowed sizable U.S. forces to remain in Iraq, Obama declared the war in Iraq over. As subsequent events have shown, a war is not over simply because the president of the United States says it is.

Instead of a responsible phased withdraw of U.S. troops from Iraq, the U.S. cut and run. The White House says they did not have a choice—that it was Iraq that refused to sign an agreement to allow U.S. troops to remain. But the truth is that Obama did not use all of America’s political, economic, security, and diplomatic clout in Baghdad to secure an agreement for U.S. troops to remain. When the Iraqis said no, Obama was only too happy to oblige.

Five years later, ISIS controls huge swathes of the Sunni heartland, including Iraq’s second largest city, Mosul. Iran has more influence in Baghdad than ever before and calls the shots in the Shia-dominated southern part of the country. The Kurds, who were forced to fight—literally—for their livelihoods, have essentially carved out a de facto nation-state that includes important oil-producing cities like Kirkuk. Put simply, Iraq is a mess.

Obama’s response to the rise of ISIS and the deterioration of Iraq has been incremental. He has chosen to do the bare minimum required to make it look as though he is doing something, but in actuality he is doing next to nothing at all. Incremental troop increases to Iraq, a few thousand trainers in Iraq, and an aircraft carrier repositioned in the Persian Gulf do not constitute a strategy.
The drip of U.S. forces back into the region is absent of a strategy and is the hallmark of a president in denial about the true security challenges the U.S. faces in the region, not only by ISIS, but also by Iran.

Ashton Carter’s recent remarks show how back-footed the U.S. is in fighting ISIS. His answer: the possibility of more U.S. troops in the region. How many troops? What will their mission be? Is there now a strategy? If Carter knows the answers to any of these questions, he does not say. Obama has little interest in confronting or desire to confront the threat ISIS poses. Having won his Nobel Peace Prize already and “ended” the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, he will ride out the remaining months of his tenure by incrementally positioning U.S. forces in the region. This is a façade.

The next U.S. president will inherit a festering situation in the Middle East that is a result of Obama’s quixotic view of the world coupled with his incessant indecisiveness. As research from The Heritage Foundation has pointed out, taking on ISIS in Iraq and checking them in Syria will require a significant ground force component. It will also require a strategy to help Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey with the refugee crisis and their security. It will also require backing the Kurds with more military firepower, getting the Iraqi army back into the fight, and helping the political elite in Baghdad overcome Iraq’s toxic sectarian divisions that push Sunnis to ISIS and Shias to Iran.

More importantly, any new strategy will require U.S. leadership in the region that has been absent for years. Dithering has its consequences.Until the U.S. decides to get in it to win it and develops a strategy with all the resources needed to implement it, ISIS will continue its march.

[bold and italics emphasis mine]

Luke Coffey is the director of the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy at The Heritage Foundation. Read his research.The Daily Signal is the multimedia news organization of The Heritage Foundation. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ash Carter: It’s Time to Accelerate the ISIL Fight" - By Ash Carter, 1/22/2016; http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/ash-carter-isil-fight-213554