Star Parker at the Values Voter Summit 2009

Star Parker

Star Parker

Star Parker, one of my favorite writers and one of the most dynamic speakers at the Values Voter Summit, spoke this afternoon.

Star said she got some hope for the conservative movement last year when Sarah Palin was chosen as the Republican vice presidential pick, but her heart sank after the election and she spent some time a little down in the dumps.

But her spirits lifted this summer as she saw regular Americans rise up against the socialist push.  At the beginning of the summer, she said she was hoping we could just stop the public option portion of liberal health care “reform,” but now she had hopes we can stop it all.

Parker said when she saw in the paper that “tens of thousands” of people were coming to Washington for last week’s Tea Party, she knew she was coming through Washington and thought she wouldn’t have any trouble getting around.  But then she got here and saw “hundreds of thousands,” and she became excited.

She said a lot of accusations of “racism” have been thrown around to try and discredit people of traditional values, but that we are not going to allow it to work this time.

Star said we need to remember that we are a Christian people and we must remember how and why we believe what we believe.  She said we just know this so we can “remove the heavy hand of government from people’s lives.”  She said all of this government intervention is contrary to Scripture, and that socialism is rooted in covetousness.  (The crowd roared it’s approval)

She said that when liberals say it can’t be done by the private world, that Christians don’t want to help people, we need to remind them of all those who volunteer in pregnancy resource centers and so many other places to reach out and help far better than the government can.

Parker said we need to back into our communities and infiltrate our councils and school boards so we can bring change at the level closest to the people who need it most.

She said that when she appeared on The View and told them that she had used abortion as birth control and killed several of her own children, she said that seemed to make Joy Behar uncomfortable. Parker said Behar had asked her how she could have so many abortions.

Parker said she told her, “Why should something be right to do once but wrong to do many times?”

In other words, if it’s wrong, it’s wrong.  Taking an innocent human life is wrong.  Period.

30 Responses to “Star Parker at the Values Voter Summit 2009”

  1. God bless Star Parker. It sounds like she bravely opened her heart to everyone and told it like it is on abortion.

    She's a strong Christian lady. And, she's saying what I've been saying: We cannot accept ANY government “health” care bill. The government has no place in our medical system. Yes, I know they've already infiltrated with Medicare and Medicaid, and look how full of fraud and corruption those bankrupt government programs are. How does any sane person think a complete government-run system will be any good at all? Don't tell me people will have choices, and that the government program would be just another option. Anyone who believes that, is deluded. Their goal is to take the whole system over; make no mistake about it. Why would that be their goal? To take in the money from the whole medical “insurance” system AND to have complete control of every person's medical treatment, records, etc.

    Ms. Parker is also right about the charity of Christians. Christians and conservatives are the most generous people on earth, but as I said today in another post, poverty will never be eradicated in this present world. Jesus told us that Himself. We continue to help our neighbors in our own limited way, but the poor will always be with us to the end of the age.

    Star Parker: right on all points.

    Gina Miller

  2. I am not an expert on the Bible, so would like to know the quote or words from Jesus that specifically say poverty can never be eliminated from the world. It may be true, but sort of engenders a defeatest attitude to me. Also saying we should continue to help our neighbors ” in our own limited way”, is not inspirational at all. We should be exhorting our neighbors to see that this ' own limited way ' attitude is not enough and selfish.

    I don't like the government in health care, but the fact is that Medicare and Medicaid have saved lives to those who would have delayed treatment if they had no coverage at all. We see that happening now all across the US in those who are uninsured. Yes, they may eventually go to an E.R. , but it is frequently too late.

    Given the fraud and expense of government systems like Medicaid, if they have saved one life, is it not worth it ? How much expense is one life worth ? Can't put a value on it. It is similiar in a way way to the abortion issue. Isn't it worth it if we can prevent the abortion of one child no matter the expense. In this instance we want the government to intrude and make abortion illegal. So government intervention in one ( abortion ) is o.k. , but in another ( health care ) it is not.

    My concern is with human life and not whether the government is involved if it saves even one life.

  3. The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. – Mark 14:7

    It's just a simple statement of reality–one that God expects us to remedy as much as possible through private and personal charity.

    Our concern is, of course, human lives. We must also be concerned with how God has said those needs are to be met, and he has made it repeatedly clear in both Old and New Testaments that this is to be done in the private sector.

    As Americans we must also be concerned with what is legal according to the Constitution and what is not, because when we start ignoring part of the Constitution, it doesn't take long (as the current state of affairs illustrates) before we're ignoring a lot of it.

    And the Constitution (along with the men who built this nation) also make it very clear that government charity is not authorized by our Constitution. And it's essentially for the same reason God doesn't want things done that way: it's wasteful, inefficient, erodes human dignity, and is open to huge abuse.

  4. Maybe you can clear something else up for me. You keep saying that the Constitution makes it very clear that the government is not authorized to provide charity. Lets stick to the actual verbage of the Constitution, because it and only it is the law, and not quotes these men made outside of the Constitution . . Isn't it true that the Constitution just doesn't mention this charity issue, so if it isn't mentioned then you interpret that to mean it can't inturn authorize it .

    Well, if that is true, then the Constitution doesn't mention anything about same-sex marriage, but you are for laws stating it should be against the law. Since the Constitution is the law and you feel if it doesn't mention something, then government can't authorize it, how could you say the government has the right to authorize, through law, that marriage has to be between a man and a woman

  5. I think you're–like many Americans, unfortunately–missing a key truth about the nature of the Constitution.

    The US Constitution is designed to limit government. It guarantees our rights, true, and it does so by limiting government. The founders realized that when government has too much power, it–because it is made up of fallen human beings–tends toward corruption and abuse of power. So they placed great checks, balances, power-sharing mechanisms, and LIMITS on government.

    Article 1 Section 8 lists what the federal government can do. If it is not listed there, it can't do it. These are called the “enumerated powers.” In other words, the people and the states have delegated certain duties and authorities to the federal government (because the federal government exists to serve the people and the states–not the other way around); those duties have been listed, and if something is not on that list, the federal government does not have the authority to do it.

    Marriage is not really a constitutional issue per se. If anything, it is a human issue; God instituted marriage when he created the first man and woman, and it transcends all law and all religions. Strictly speaking, the Constitution says nothing about marriage and therefore it “should” not be an issue. However, since homosexual activists and activist courts are more than willing to subvert (a) what used to be common sense and (b) laws that codify that common sense, putting something in the constitution has become our last line of defense, our last fortress to protect this fundamental human institution (which SHOULD be obvious as to what it is and what it is not) from being perverted and hijacked.

  6. I reread Article 1 Section 8. Thanks. Again it doesnt't mention charity or marriage, so by your analysis, Congress has no right to get involved in either charity or marriage.Not mentioned then no involvement. Things like fundamental human institutions and common sense are subjective, because I could just as easily say saving a life through a government heath plan is a fundamental human institution or common sense.You have stated we must go by what is written in Article One Section 8 as the powers of Congress and if not mentioned, then government must stay out.

    Article 1 section 8 doesn't mention marriage or charity so they fall under the same group that should be excluded from government involvement. How then can you advocate the government making a law prohibiting same-sex marriage, when the Constitution says marriage(like charity) is not under its domain .

  7. I'm having computer troubles, so please forgive if this seems abbreviated (I've already typed most of it twice, only to see it go “poof”.)

    I'ts not quite accurate to say “no mention, no involement,” but I suppose that's close enough for our discussion.

    Until about 60-70 years ago, we went by Art. 1 Section 8. But liberals decided to throw that standard out, and got enough judges in the system at at the SC level that they have succeeded in effectively passing laws through the judiciary.

    While the Constitution should not be used to protect marriage, it is already being used to attack marriage (through the “judicial legislation” I mentioned above). Therefore we have two choices: 1. give up and allow liberals to legislate through a judicial oligarchy, or 2. spell out at the highest legal level in our country that this fundamental human institution will not be messed with. The judiciary has demonstrated it's contempt for law ad nauseum, leaving only the Constitution as a place high enough to be out of their reach.

  8. Brian wrote, “It may be true, but sort of engenders a defeatest attitude to me. Also saying we should continue to help our neighbors ” in our own limited way”, is not inspirational at all. We should be exhorting our neighbors to see that this ' own limited way ' attitude is not enough and selfish.”

    Why should the words of Jesus engender a deafeatist attitude in you? Poverty is a reality and will continue to be until the end of this age; like sickness and death, it is a part of this fallen world. And, when I talked about helping my “neighbor” in my own limited way, why do you call me “selfish?” What you don't know is that I am poor and can only give so much, which isn't much, because I literally barely get by, and that is thanks to the Lord. Every day He gives us what we need at the moment we need it. But, I love to give to others and have given to people all my life. You simply don't know what you're talking about when you say my “attitude is not enough and selfish.”

    Gina Miller

  9. Gina

    It is not the words of Jesus that I find defeatest, because what he said about poverty is true-it will always be with us. But if Jesus asks us to watch over our fellow man and comfort them, should that not be the main or one of of the main activities in our lives ? My concern is that looking at it from the attitude of 'there will always be suffering' will engender some to not put the effort that they should put in to help their fellow man.It can be an overwhelming life goal and many get discouraged because of the fact that there are so many people suffering. It is easy to fall back on the 'well, there will always be suffering ' or ' what can one person really do' philosophy.

    I would prefer the approach that while what Jesus said is true, I am going to live my life as if I can do all and anything possible to help them. Live a life that believes I can sure help more than I have been. I am not talking about monetary aid necessarily either.Time is free to give away.

    I am not a Christian, but I am a doctor and I am constantly torn on how much community and indigent care I provide and do a fair amount, but could do more. I am selfish. I could do more and still be able to spend quality time with family and friends. But the Christian has a higher calling. The Christian should spend enormous amounts of time tending to the sufferers, because that's what Jesus ask them to do. While Jesus said there will always be poverty and suffering, we should not in any way let that keep us from doing more. That is why I think the Biblical concept of charity, while doing great things, fails because it can do so much more

    What Jesus said is true, but live our lives as if we can prove him wrong.I think Jesus would appreciate the effort

  10. Dr. Rutledge,

    I know you're not a Christian; I can tell by your words, but there is still plenty of hope for you to find the Truth as long as you're breathing. You have a fatal flaw in your logic, but you don't know it. Jesus did not come to tell us to “take care of people's suffering.” His purpose in coming was to present a perfect sacrifice on the cross for our sins, which would be acceptable to a perfect God, His Father, in order to save all those who believe in Him and are called according to His purpose. Now, this is something you do not understand at this time, but I pray that He will reveal the Truth to you, because the Word of God is not “mentally” discerned; it is spiritually discerned and that only by the Spirit of God. You must want to know the Truth to find it.

    That said, Jesus does not tell us that our purpose is to help poor people. Helping poor people and suffering people is a “given” when you have the Spirit of Christ in you. Jesus does not HAVE to tell us to do what comes naturally to us when His Spirit is in us. What Jesus tells us to do is SPREAD THE GOOD NEWS OF SALVATION THROUGH JESUS CHRIST (Read Mark 16:15-16, and this is not the only place where Jesus says this). That is our job, our purpose in this world. You do not understand this, and I will not get into an extended “debate” with you about this.

    The best, the ONLY, way to ultimately help the “poor” is to plant the seed of the Word of God that will save them from eternity in Hell.

    “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.” I Corinthians 1:18

    Gina Miller

  11. Gina

    I agree a debate is not necessary, but I think I do understand the tenents of Christianity and think it has great moral value. I just don't believe it has any factual truth to it anymore than any other of the many religions.

    Matthew 19:21 Jesus said unto them ' If thou will be perfect, go and sell that thou hast and give to the poor and thou shalt have treasure in heaven and come and follow me'

    It seems quite clear that Jesus is telling mankind to rid itself of all its worldly possessions and give them to the poor and you will find heaven

    I don't do this and either do Christians, which is why I maintain the Christian model of charity will need help from other sources to fulfill Jesus's call for us to give all we have to help the poor and suffering. It is unfortunate that we have to be taxed and that money then given to the poor and suffering, rather than voluntarily doing ourselves.

  12. Dr. Rutledge,

    I will reply once more, but only to point out that you have no knowledge of the meaning of the Word of God.

    You are quoting Jesus' words from Matthew 19:21. You are taking a single line and taking it out of context, not understanding its meaning. You do not understand what Jesus was saying to the young man. The young man was a “religious” Jew who followed the law as closely as he was able. He sought salvation through the following of the law. He did not understand that following the law will not save you. Jesus, who knows all things, saw into the man's heart and knew that this young man's “god” was his wealth. The young man loved his money. Jesus did not tell him to sell his possessions and give it ALL away. He was telling the man to learn to not love and worship money, but that was not Jesus' main message to the man. Look at those last, most important words of Jesus, “…and come and follow me.” Jesus was telling the man to worship God, not money.

    God bless you, Dr. Rutledge, but you cannot, and will never, understand Scripture without the Spirit of God illuminating it for you.

    Gina Miller

  13. Again,I remember Bible study and remember this story and it's meaning quite well. I also know that when Jesus is speaking to one man in the Bible , He is speaking to us all. He is telling us to heed this story and listen to what He was saying to this man, and apply it to our lives.

    To be truthful, Jesus doesn't make it clear if He wants this man
    ( and thus us as well ) to give a tiny amount or all of his possessions to the poor , so that aspect of it is open to interpretation. To me, if Jesus said go and sell WHAT YOU HAVE, I would take that to mean exactly what HE said ” What I have” Seems clear to me, but again it is open to interpretation.

    Jesus cared nothing of possessions and I am sure He didn't care in the least what possessions this man had or us. Why not rid himself of all and just go and follow Jesus. Wouldn't that be the ultimate sacrifice and release him( or us ) from all worldly things to be a purely, one hundred per cent spiritual being free of distracting material things.

    In today's world that would include such things as T.V.s and computers etc.When you think about it, all we NEED is a little clothing and a little food, so I would think to give up 99% would be a good start.

  14. Not to interrupt, but I do want to say that I don't think Jesus wants us to give up our means to help others just to give up what we have!

  15. That well could be. Maybe Jesus wants us to work and then give it all away. That is indeed a nice interpretation. Would certainly doubt He would want us to hoard and save and when we die give it to our kids, who by most part, are able to make their own way.

  16. Brian, are you answering me with this response?

  17. Carrie,

    I apologize, because I thoguht you meant that maybe Jesus didn't want us to give up our work, but just give up all the material things that our work allows us to possess.

  18. Sometimes we have to have money and/or means to be able to help! So, if we deny ourselves “all” money and means, then haven't we likewise denied our means of helping others?

    On the other hand, if we only collect money and stuff for ourselves… that is a totally different scenario, in my opinion!

  19. I agree and that's why I said earlier 'well maybe keep 1% of earnings' and give the rest to those who are suffering. Any extra possessions-ANYTHING- at all are really meaningless if we were to follow Jesus's teachings. but we don't follow it, which is why I believe the Christian model of charity is not a success in that it nowhere achieves what it easily could

  20. Carrie,

    Dr. Brian Rutledge is here on this site to be an aggravation to us. He does not have eyes to see, ears to hear, or a mind or heart that can understand the truths of Scripture. In plain words, I explained to him last night the central meaning of the verse in Matthew, but he has no understanding. He keeps harping on this idea of his that we should all be walking around naked. He doesn't understand that it is the Lord who gives us all we need. He thinks the state must provide for all needs. He doesn't even know where everything comes from. He keeps twisting Scripture to fit his perverted ideas that are disguised as “helping people who are suffering.” This is just a smokescreen. He is flat-out lying about the words of Jesus, lying about what Jesus tells us to do.

    I feel sorry for him, but I wouldn't waste my time replying more than once or twice, if at all, because he insists on always having the last word, no matter how ridiculous his lies are. The knowledge of the Truth is not in Dr. Rutledge, so he wallows in lies and ignorance.

    Gina Miller

  21. I have never felt that personal attacks like calling someone a liar and ignorant, claiming someone wants the state to pay for all needs or that someone feels like we should walk around naked, very worth while.

    I have always been respectful and tried not attack anyone personally, but simply express my thoughts. They are not deceitful or smokescreens, but only the ideas of one person. Deceit would be if I said things I didn't believe. This is the truth as I see it and I could be wrong, but I am not trying to deceive. Just because someone has diiferent views doesn't make them ignorant.

    I don't understand why so many Christians get so defensive and just want to shut the discussion down when I or anyone make statements like buying costly T.V.'s, computers,excessive clothes, etc. is not want Jesus would wish of them.

    I honestly feel if He were here today, He would appeal to us all to give up these excessive worldly possessions and give your excesses to the poor and follow Him just as He said in Matthew 19:21

  22. I'm not taking my own advice here by replying to you again.

    I'm not attacking you, so there's no need for you to be “defensive.” I'm simply stating the truth. I do not try to “shut the discussion down.” I was pointing out to Carrie that it is useless to discuss Scripture with you because you cannot understand it. Now, you may very well not be deliberately lying, but if you're not, you are deceived, and thus, ignorant. Ignorance simply means lack of knowledge. I'm am not “defensive” as you say. I know the wisdom of avoiding useless arguments.

    You can post all you want, but anyone here should be aware that it is pointless, a waste of time, to debate the Word of God with you.

    Gina Miller

  23. Gina This will be my last response so you can feel free to comment after this and make the last point.I do have a bad tendency to keep trying to make sense of things and it may come off as offensive to some, but I do not mean to offend.Just ask questions through the process of debate. The only reason I 'debate' on this site is to try and learn the Christian viewpoint. I have learned a lot and Mr. Ellis has convinced me I was wrong on many issues. If everyone writes in and all agree, who can learn anything from that. Maybe I will 'see the light' someday. Would never rule out that possibility.

    I do believe that people still debate the meaning of many of the scriptures and have different interpretations, even in the evangelical community. The scriptures have been 'debated' for eons. That is how some people learn of which I am one.I'm through. Have a good day.

  24. Gina, Dr. Rutledge has questioned some of pieces and comments. Whereas I thought I had covered all bases and made all things clear — his questions made it obvious I had not. His questions led to discussion which led to opportunity to further explain and provide the lacking information.

  25. Carrie,

    You can reply to him all you want, but you will NEVER “cover all bases” and make things clear to him (I have posted VERY clear responses to him, but they go flying right over his non-listening head). You don't understand that he will never be satisfied, because he does not want to know the Truth. He only wants to argue and antagonize. Why do you think he would not give you the “last word?”

    He said to me that he only wants to know the “Christian viewpoint.” That's a load of b.s. For one thing, the “Christian viewpoint” is meaningless. All that matters is the Word of God. If he wanted to understand the Word of God, he would, because the Lord would reveal it to him, if he truly sought to know God. But, he does not want to know God.

    You can type until you're blue in the face trying to explain Scripture to him, but he will always come back with another useless, time-wasting, false argument.

    I cannot even make you hear my point, Carrie, since you weren't able to hear what I said to you in my last reply, so engage him at your will, and good luck to you.


  26. I am a little disappointed, Gina, that I'm not even allowed to share my opinion with you, without you suggesting I am defective.

  27. Carrie, I apologize for being so blunt with you that it made you think I was implying that you are “defective.” That is certainly not the case and was not at all in my thinking.

    Please disregard my advice to you.


  28. Carrie,

    I have removed the last two lines of my next-to-the-last post to you. Those were probably the offending lines. And, I certainly don't want to hurt your feelings. You seem like a very kind, patient person.


  29. Carrie, I apologize for being so blunt with you that it made you think I was implying that you are “defective.” That is certainly not the case and was not at all in my thinking.

    Please disregard my advice to you.


  30. Carrie,

    I have removed the last two lines of my next-to-the-last post to you. Those were probably the offending lines. And, I certainly don't want to hurt your feelings. You seem like a very kind, patient person.