The voter rebellion is on! Who should lead: Cruz or Trump? Both?

February 3, 2016 | Jim Robinson

[Jim Robinson]

Q: Why are the voters rebelling?

A: The leftist progressives have been treading on our constitution and our liberty for at least the last 100 years and consequently we've suffered a long train of abuses and usurpations: The income tax (16th amendment), ending state sovereignty/concentrating power at the federal level (the 17th amendment), the Fed, heavy-handed/unconstitutional regulations, socialized retirement, socialized health care, restrictions on religious liberty, legalized abortion, federal mandated homosexual marriage with the heavy hand of the federal government enforcing it over the objections of the states and small business operators, the illegal alien invasion, the subversive Muslim invasion, the last 8 years of lawlessness under a Marxist/Islamofascist usurper, and a totally ineffective Republican opposition party that caves in or actually goes along with much of the above.

The tea party rebellion rose up several years ago to try to fight off the most recent Marxist assaults on our liberty and was quite effective at electing Republican majorities in the House and the Senate and in the majority of the states, but all to no avail.

The professional political elites entrenched within the Republican establishment co-opted our newly elected tea party representatives and or otherwise blunted their efforts and continued allowing the Marxist democrats to have their way over us. Even a rebellion against the Speaker of the House did no good. The new Speaker is as weak as the old Speaker.

And so the situation is ripe for rebellion. And we had a great Christian constitutional conservative tea party leader poised to lead it, Ted Cruz. And we were happy to jump on this young lion's bandwagon and push him through to triumph over the Marxist Democrats.

But the entrenched GOP establishment would have none of it and they (the GOPe and related Super PACS and their allies at FOX News and the cheap labor/open borders lobby) lined up behind the malleable open-borders Jeb Bush whom they could control and amassed a vast 100 million dollar plus warchest with promises of millions more to come. With the help of the "free" press, their anointed one was all but nominated. No way would a first term upstart and senate outcast like Ted Cruz overtake their anointed prince.

But then jumped in an older, long-maned alpha lion who's been around the block a couple times, roaring his way to the top of the hill. Trump's hard-nosed, no-nonsense, non-politically-correct, take no prisoners approach quickly grabbed the attention of the masses of fed-up voters. Trump single handedly slew the establishment's Prince Jeb, the media and the establishment itself and completely rewrote the rules of engagement.

His bold pronouncements that he would build a wall, enforce the law and deport them all was the exact right message at the exact right time and immediately vaulted him to front-runner status. And he added to that that he would end sanctuary cities, end anchor babies and even slap a moratorium on Muslim immigration. Again, exactly what the masses wanted to hear.

Now, many of us feel that these twin invasions (illegal aliens and Muslim infiltrators) were and are existential threats to our national sovereignty and were thrilled to have a mighty warrior like Trump who takes no guff from the media or the establishment to lead the charge.

The media, the establishment and even many so-called conservatives immediately objected with "you can't do that." It's unconstitutional and un-American. It's not who we are as Republicans.

That last one was especially telling. "It's not who we are as Republicans."

Ain't that the truth. And that's our entire problem in a nutshell.

Trump's huge rallies attracted thousands and thousands and his polling numbers soared for months. He was leading in most of the national polls and in most states.

But there was a growing counter-insurgency rumbling beneath the rebellion. Trump's history is strewn with contradictory and potentially fatal landmines. Too many of his past pronouncements and activities were on the NY liberal side and some are too much for Christian constitutional conservatives to bear or forgive. He swears that he's now a pro-life, pro-family Christian, but he has also stated that he's never asked for forgiveness. That's mighty hard for Christians to accept, but who are we to judge what's in a man's heart.

So here we are. The rebellion is roaring. The people are massing. Torches and pitchforks at the ready, but we are divided on who should lead it. And not just divided, we're scratching each others eyes out fighting about it. And as we do, the establishment's second choice (Gang of Eight traitor Rubio) is making inroads.

Personally, I'm all in for the Rebellion no matter who leads it. And I've often stated that Cruz is my favorite because of his constitutional conservative stance, but if Trump wins the nomination I'll enthusiastically support him in the general. Why? Because we cannot possibly allow yet another American-hating communist to follow Obama into the White House to complete the job of totally destroying our free Republic. End of that story. It's a no-brainer and my picture is in the dictionary under that term.

I absolutely love Trump's bold stand against illegal aliens and his call for a moratorium on Muslim immigration and believe it's even stronger than Cruz's past positions. I also love Trump's Reagan-like tax plan. Cruz's flat tax proposal is also interesting. I believe they both want to cut regulations, cut spending, cut government, return education to the states, etc, build a powerful military and fight against terrorism and make America great again.

Cruz is stronger on life and marriage and probably on choosing judges, but Trump says he's a pro-life, pro-family Christian but that's always a gamble anyway. Even Reagan and GWB blew a few judicial nominations.

The important thing here (IMHO) is that we save our nation. I'm not ready to rule out either of these candidates. Cruz is off to a great start and is up by one delegate over Trump and together they're double the GOPe's second choice. But it's a long hard grind ahead.

I say we should let the candidates fight it out and not be so eager to trash either one of our leading candidates. Digging up and publishing dirt and rumors on either is not doing our side any good and is potentially destructive in the long run.

And trashing our fellow FReepers is something that should never be done. This is going to be a long fight and we do not want to lose too many of our friends.

Meanwhile, let the rebellion gain strength. We're all in it together to save our nation. Please save your ammunition and your venom for the true enemy on the left.

Oh, I almost forgot. If you haven't already done so, please get your donation in. We're gonna need it to survive this fight.

[jokemoke]

Dirty tricks won’t win a national election if you are a Republican. Cruz is toast!

[Theophilus]

1. I never attacked Trump's soul.
2. My issue with Trump is not that "God has renounced him", it's that Trump does not fear God. Most people don't fear God. Trump has stated that he has never felt the need to ask God for forgiveness. If he has no need for forgiveness then he he does not respect God's justice or commandment nor does he fear Him. Trump is also obviously ignorant of God's Word.
3. I don't understand your point about the pagan tyrants, but I agree that God uses them and we should be thankful that He does. Notwithstanding, I would never vote for any of them.
4. It's good advice for me to watch out for my own salvation. However, you are wrong to say that am telling God how to do His business. God gives us the blessed duty to vote and otherwise engage in the political process. It is wise and good to use Biblical wisdom, guidance and criteria to choose our leaders. I recommend that every Christian do so. It is true that ultimately God decides everything both who we support and who wins.

Two Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

John 10:27 
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me

[Gator113]

“The reason I am supporting Trump is because I honestly do not believe Cruz can win the General Election, and this election is way too important for this utterly stupid infighting taking place.”

Exactly my bottom line!

[Robert DeLong]

It should be the bottom line for all of us, as far as I am concerned. Sad commentary that, that is not the case apparently.

[Albion Wilde]

We will have to agree to disagree here. You made a flat statement that Trump does not fear God. And you know this how? Are you basing your presumption on a short sound byte when he was asked an intrusively personal question at an early speech? Have you ever lived in the Northeast, where it is a cultural trait not to give open witness in words (I don’t approve of it; but I see it in all the old-line churches, like the one in which he was raised). There is no “certification of surrendered salvation” requirement for the presidency. Many of the Founders did not believe in Christ.

You say you don’t get the point about the pagan kings — did you not read or consider the links provided. Have you not because you don’t want your assumptions challenged?

You called those kings tyrants, when my post did not said that; my post pointed out that they were benefactors of the Chosen People, to whom Christians are “grafted on.”

This is my point in showing those stories from the Bible: that religious purity is not a requirement for good or beneficial governmance towards Christians (who are the New Jerusalem).

[Lumper20]

I do not know if you know this, but; Presbyterians at least back when I grew up and the NY church that I attended in Plattsburgh, NY had one or more Sunday’s a month where communion was held right after the Apostle’s Creed. We could either have real wine or the non alcoholic version. Trump maybe thinks that is his forgiveness as I used to?

[DoughtyOne]

That is such a dishonest list it’s nothing more than a smear.

The Cruz cult here is certain ill informed.

[wakibeach]

It is not necessary to send me a ping on something that
I read 2 days ago, before you sent the ping.

So do not ping me again.

[GBA]

Thanks for the feedback! Good to know I’m not as alone as I feel sometimes.

[blondiegoodbadugly]

I read it today at work but could not reply.

I agree it was an excellent post by Jim about the elections.

However, I must say I have not read a post by Jim that I did not fully agree with him.(smile) seriously!

God Bless him and his family.

I thank him from the bottom of my heart for this forum. An FR friend told me about this forum many years ago, I have loved it from day one. My favorite place to go to read and learn.

Thank you Jim

[Albion Wilde]

With pleasure.

[Theophilus]

Trump maybe thinks that is his forgiveness as I used to?

That's understandable, as long as nobody or else everybody got their feelings hurt because that's the pluralistic world we live in.

[jaydee770]

"...That is such a dishonest list it's nothing more than a smear..."

Well now, they have all been true at one point or another. I believe we can all agree that Trumps "first instinct" for most any political problem is to go with his innate "NYC-Values" -- at least until he gets some focus group feedback to let him know which way to "evolve" for the audience he happens to be in front of. At least his clarion call for universal healthcare is recent -- have you already forgotten Trumps petulant outburst (a "trumpertantrum") where he *screamed*, "THE GOVT'S GOING TO PAY FOR IT!" when asked who would pay for his universal health plan on 60-Minutes just recently on 9/27/2015?

Besides, I thought you were just posting non-pertinent bull-mess at random. Are you saying that's not what you were doing? I was just following your lead.

Anyhoo, if there's one thing I've learned about Trump cultists on Free Republic, it's that there is nothing that *infuriates* them more than a stubborn, obvious, "Trump-Truth" that they can't believably refute - say, like the one that the following meme ably illustrates:

[IChing]

Excellent analysis of the situation.

[DoughtyOne]

You mean like stealing votes from other candidates?

Or did you mean voting to lower the number of senators needed to approve of the Obama/Iran nuclear deal by half?

Or did you man voting for TPA?

Or did you mean when Cruz was advising Bush to say he didn’t approve of Caifornia’s Proposition 187?

Or did you mean when Cruz helped Bush develop “for the children” language to oppose clamping down on illegal immigration?

Or did you mean when Cruz took out very large unsecured loans on Wall Street?

Or did you mean when Ted’s Wife worked for the CFR, that is dead set on bringing the NAU into being.

Or did you mean when Ted said he only proposed the increase of H1-B visas to 500% of what it had been as a poison pill for the Gang of Eight Bill, but was still pushing it two years later.

I could say the same thing to you folks.

Get that post out of your own eye and get back to me.

[Din Maker]

I've liked Cruz since he ran for the Senate here in Texas in 2012, but, I'm a Trump supporter for the Presidency. I've been terribly disappointed in Cruz's behavior here of late. The "illegal mail-outs" he sent before the Iowa Caucuses and he, and his staff, spreading the lie about Dr. Carson the day of the vote. Not to mention the videos that have been released lately where he was sure talking like a "Pro-Amnesty" whore a few years ago. Put me in the "Trump Column" on this poll please.

[jaydee770]

"...You mean like stealing votes from other candidates?..."

Did widdle donny not like getting his widdle rear end paddled in Iowa? Politics ain't bean bag. First, Trump peed-backwards and ran crying from the big bully Megyn Kelly, then he's whining because he got out-Trumped in Iowa. I don't care either way. Go Cruz! Do it again!

"...Or did you mean voting to lower the number of senators needed to approve of the Obama/Iran nuclear deal by half?..."

He sure did! So what?

"...Or did you man voting for TPA?..."

He sure did! So what?

"...Or did you mean when Cruz was advising Bush to say he didn't approve of Caifornia's Proposition 187?..."

He sure did! So what?

"...Or did you mean when Cruz helped Bush develop "for the children" language to oppose clamping down on illegal immigration?..."

He sure did! So what?

"...Or did you mean when Cruz took out very large unsecured loans on Wall Street?..."

They were secured against personal assets, but otherwise... So what?

"...Or did you mean when Ted's Wife worked for the CFR, that is dead set on bringing the NAU into being..."

Yep! So what?

"...Or did you mean when Ted said he only proposed the increase of H1-B visas to 500% of what it had been as a poison pill for the Gang of Eight Bill, but was still pushing it two years later..."

Well, that and other stated reasons besides that one... So what?

"...I could say the same thing to you folks..."

And you either haven't bothered to investigate deeper than a headline and are just parroting talking points -OR- you are being intellectually dishonest. I'll claim it's the latter since you are *desperately* trying to cover for Trump.

"...Get that post out of your own eye and get back to me..."

My vision is fine. Trump cultists on the other hand...

[DoughtyOne]

I’m sure you think you really scored with that.

[jaydee770]

“...I’m sure you think you really scored with that...”

Scored? Are you *seriously* keeping score? Geeze, you Trump cultists take the cake! Devoting that level of emotional investment in trump must be what suffering from some sort of psychosis feels like...

You should take a break from the internet. Relax a bit. Or focus elsewhere. Say? Don’t you have more important things to do like (ahem) “correct” a FR caucus poll or whatever it is you do behind the scenes with it?

[DoughtyOne]

Another whiff...

0 for 2 there sparky.