YES! Great post. There is so much ugly stuff as you begin to vet this man which is why he scares the crap out of me. Even those he associates with are scary like this guy:

Zitat

---

Senator Ted Cruz is making a bold new campaign pledge: if he’s elected president, he’ll make what he calls “semi-occasional” church visits mandatory, by federal law, for all American citizens, a proposal inspired after Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen suggested the same thing this week during an appropriations meeting.

Cruz’s proposal, which his campaign staff says will become an “official” part of his platform over the next several days, would require all Americans to visit “a church or other religious property” at least once each month, unless they meet certain exemption standards, which have not been formally announced yet. Failure to comply would result in a fine, and going several months without a church visit could even result in a single night of jail time.

---

Again, I am all for people attending church. If more people attended church we would probably have less crime as a society and certainly more viable and functioning family units. HOWEVER, no place in Scripture mandates or instructs that church attendance should be enforced by a secular government, church attendance must be done from the heart, not from the government. Imagine if the govt were to start legislating this what else in the church could the govt start legislating? Do we really want to go there??

But again - this is Dominionism in action. According to The Apologetics Index:

Zitat

---

Now that the church is under the leadership of living apostles and prophets, it can complete its primary task — the Great Commission, which has been redefined by NAR leaders as a commission to take dominion, or sociopolitical control, of the earth. (C. Peter Wagner, Dominion!: How Kingdom Action Can Change the World (Grand Rapids, MI: Chosen Books, 2008)

The “Gospel of the Kingdom” is the NAR teaching that God, through Christ’s death and resurrection, has made the way for Christians to take dominion of the earth. This is a redefined gospel in contrast to the gospel of salvation from sin that, historically, has been taught by evangelicals.

Yet, it should be emphasized that, when NAR leaders talk about “transforming society,” as Wagner does here, they are not speaking merely of efforts to positively influence culture. Rather, they are speaking of efforts to take control of the earth’s societal institutions — that is, dominionism.

---

And it is heresy.

There is so much in Cruz's background that few people voting for him know! Thanks algeron - you are on top of it as usual!

Wow. Reads like it's straight from the bowels of FR.

Quote: Sanguine wrote in post #3

---

Wow. Reads like it's straight from the bowels of FR.

---

@ThirstyMan I'll answer that this evening. I want to give it the consideration it deserves.

Anyone who read the viscous racism that masqueraded as christianity would never vote for someone comfortable attending Rev Wright's church.

Well, yeah, but in his defense Obama never heard any of that stuff. Not in the 20+ years he attended that church did he ever hear the racist mutterings of da Revrund Wright. (He may have napped a lot during services).

As far as Cruz's religiosity goes I have no problem with that. I believe he is sincere and I hardly think the American people would allow him or anyone else to establish any kind of theocracy.

OTOH, I would be pleased to have someone in the WH who is a devout Christian, even if I don't accept his theology, and conducts himself accordingly. I simply don't see the "slime" Algernonpj and apparently some others perceive. Maybe that's because I like the guy, like what he stands for, and find it refreshing a candidate clearly announces his devotion to God and His Son. That is so restorative after 7+ years of that crypto-Miuslim we have now.

How We All Die In America*
2016-03-15 23:48 by Karl Denninger
Ever think about it folks?

How our political system, our nation, self-destructs? And how someone could engineer it?

You ought to.

In the "old days" it was pretty hard to do, but not impossible. You had to engineer a rabid form of nationalism, and you had to do it with a majority of the population -- or shoot anyone who disagrees with you. Both were sort of difficult, but that didn't stop people from trying, and occasionally succeeding.

Today, the obvious method is..... more-diffuse.

Consider a Presidential Candidate, say, oh, Ted Cruz.

Now let's assume for a moment that he's a hard-core dominionist. He really believes it too; that he has a right and even a duty, ordained by God, to take over the reins of power in the United States -- and use them to smite the enemies that he believes God has pointed us at.

Such a person, if they gained the office of President, would have a very high probability of initiating a nuclear exchange and that, if it was to occur, would have an extremely high probability of not remaining "contained."

War that spills beyond little regional spats in a nuclear age is likely to leave damn near everyone blind before it's over, and a large percentage of the population of the planet will lay waste as a pile of smoking bones, probably to include you and I.

The check and balance on such a thing is that without "big data" and in a world of mass-media such a person won't become President. Why? Because there are only a few people in this country, in percentage terms, that are nuts enough to elect him and that's not enough for him to gain the office. What he has to spout off to those who are of like mind to get them to vote for him will make everyone else vote against his ascendance.

This is the natural check and balance.

Today a candidate can evade this check and balance.

Consider that Social Media platforms, along with other forms of media, are no longer mass-broadcast. They are point-to-point transmitted which means that what you see is not necessarily what your neighbor sees. In fact, your neighbor probably doesn't know what you saw.

This can't happen with Trump because Trump has been in the public eye for 30 years. He's been damn consistent during that time too, long before there was "big data." This makes such a game impossible for him to run.

But that is not true for Ted Cruz, a virtually-unknown evangelical from Texas.

Cruz, as a candidate, can determine what you want to hear he can send that, and only that, to you. You therefore think he's a constitutional conservative while I know that he's a dominionist who believes he has God's hand behind him in taking over the world.

We thus both vote for him, with you never being the wiser as to what he told me.

If you knew you never would have voted for him and he would have never gained the office.

He lied to you, in short, because he knew what you wanted to hear, and you were prevented from detecting the lie because what he told me was invisible to you.

The danger here is profound, and by the way, Cruz is, in fact, doing exactly this sort of targeting with his "big data" mining, and use of both social media and downloaded apps on smartphones and other similar devices. He is forking up big money to access and analyze that data, and he's not doing it to be nice.

Have you heard in the mainstream media that Cruz's father has preached that he is "anointed" to bring the spoils of war to the Priests?

I have not, but the dominionists have had this sent directly to them via the media they consume.

Have you heard in the mainstream media that Cruz himself appeared on-stage with pastors who have and continue to preach that felony laws should be passed against sodomy or gay people should be killed? I haven't and neither have you if you're a "constitutional conservative" because the odds are you would never read a hard-left newspaper -- but the hard-core evangelicals who believe this have heard exactly this, in the form of those appearances, via messages sent directly to them through the media they consume.

Unless you diligently seek out what is being sent to others you will never see it because we no longer live in a world where candidates transmit their message via mass-media. Instead they target and vary their message depending on who's receiving it, and they know who you are and what you like because they data mine you first, before you see anything other than the most-bland and "puppy-petting video" sort of message from them.

One candidate is doing this above all others in this cycle.

His name is Ted Cruz, he is no President Johnson, and it is 1964.




http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=231240

What, then, shall we say in response to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? Romans 8:31