imageRick Santorum receives some high praise this week from a couple of different sources, first on Wednesday night during an interview on the Hannity Show on Fox News, former Governor Sarah Palin said she wasn’t planning on making an endorsement at this point or that it would be worth a “hill of beans” right now.  (I find it interesting to note that when talking about the candidate she would support she kept saying “he” and “him” which leads me to believe that Michele Bachmann will not be someone she would consider… anyway, I digress.)  Sean Hannity asked Palin, “Do you think this has come down to just Gingrich and Romney, do you think any of the other candidates could emerge?”  Palin responded:

I don’t think it has come down solidly between Newt and Romney.  No, not yet because there is still a lot of fluid dynamic going on in this race, and if voters start shifting gears and deciding they want ideological consistency then they’re going to start paying attention to say Senator Rick Santorum who has been consistent on being a hard-liner against Iran, who will protect Israel, he’s been consistent in wanting to protect the most vulnerable and the sanctity of life, and he has been consistent in saying we need to slash the federal income tax.  I say we need to do away with it – that’s the only way to reindustrialize America and create jobs.  People will start paying attention to some of the other messages from the other messangers like Rick Santorum.  You are going to see that happen in the next 32 days.

Next Pastor Cary Gordon, a pastor at Cornerstone World Outreach in Sioux City, IA and founder of the Peacemakers Institute, endorsed a candidate for the first time publically in a video interview.  Please watch the whole thing as he explains his vetting process as he has been able to talk to many of the candidates personally as I have.

 

Gordon said we need to go by principles, not polling data, and he endorses Rick Santorum.  This is the best example of applying a Christian worldview to the Caucus vetting process that I have seen.  I also believe he does an excellent job explaining why he can’t support Ron Paul.  I wish fellow believers who have decided to support Paul would consider Gordon’s argument.  Both Palin and Gordon also articulate why I support Rick Santorum.

51 comments
  1. How can a “Christian Pastor” support a candidate who endorses PROFILING and TORTURE! This world is laying in the gutter, and all that is keeping it from going down the sewer is a big storm. I am voting for Ron Paul in both the primary and the General election(even if I have to write him in for the gen. elect.) There is nothing to lose.

    1. Yes throwing out a false accusation and then questioning the faith of a “Christian Pastor” is a great way to make an argument. Cary Gordon is a pastor and he is a follower of Christ.  I don’t think Jesus had anything to say about profiling.  By the way, what Santorum advocates is common sense.  Regarding torture, he doesn’t advocate that.  He has never used that word.  Enhanced interrogation techniques do not equate torture.

      1. The issue came up in one of the debates with respect to waterboarding.  Bachman and Santorum both said waterboarding is not torture but that it’s “enhanced interrogation”. Their saying it does not make it so.  Bachman says waterboarding is “uncomfortable but not torture”.  Do you agree with them that waterboarding is not torture?

      2. To be honest, like Huckabee and Paul (and Reagan and many others before them), I am personally against waterboarding.  As a nation, we’re bigger than that. Although I’m pulling for Santorum at this point, that is one issue on which I disagree with him.  

        Of course, if our generals consider it necessary to get a bit rougher than normal behind the scenes in extreme cases, I don’t consider that a capital offense. But I do think our official policy should be against it.

      3. If you mean such as the war in Iraq, I was against that.  I don’t think Reagan would have started the Iraq war, nor do I think George W. Bush’s father would have.  I do support conflicts that are U.N.-backed, such as the Korean War. But I am definitely against the U.S. just deciding by itself to invade a country that has not attacked us simply because we don’t like what’s going on there.  I think it’s a horrific waste of the lives of American soldiers.

        So I definitely disagree with the current slate of candidates in a lot of areas. It’s a matter of somehow finding the one you disagree with the least overall.

      4. “It’s a matter of somehow finding the one you disagree with the least overall.”
        Yes, and also confronting your own ideas: I see people repeating the stuff the mainstream media feeds them, and many of this things are very questionable (not that it it your case).

      5. Yes, and also confronting your own ideas: I see people repeating the stuff the mainstream media feeds them, and many of this things are very questionable (not that it is in your case).

        That’s an excellent point.  It’s so easy to rely on so-called experts to think for us.  Thinking independently can be kind of scary, because what if you’re “wrong”?

        For instance, I used to rely heavily on music reviews by the critics to help me decide what music to listen to.  However, I don’t do that much anymore.  I may still read published reviews to gain helpful information, but I really don’t put any more credence in their views than I do in those of, say, reviewers on Amazon.  And even then, I have my own tastes, and will often completely disagree with most of those reviews as well.

        I also used to think that well-known columnists (political and otherwise) were experts, but now I realize that their views are often a total joke.  On the whole, I really don’t think those writers are any more discerning than your average informed American.  For instance, is anybody who posts on this Web site a household name?  I don’t think so.  But I often read comments on here that are far more perceptive than those of popular conservative columnists.  

        Anyway, as you said, it’s very important to formulate one’s own ideas–and often rather daunting.  It definitely takes courage to go against the crowd, and will never be easy.   (In the short term, it always takes less effort to let others think for you.)  But ultimately, you’ll have greater peace and satisfaction as an individual if you stand by your well-considered convictions, even when you’re in the vast minority.  

        I think what it all boils down to is this:  self-trust.

      6. I find very entertaining to compare the same piece of information from different sources with different ideologies and motivations, is a great exercise in critical thinking. Good luck with your search.

      7. Thanks–that sounds like an interesting exercise.  🙂

        Incidentally, I read one time that there was a news article that was edited and deemed politically neutral by a wide panel of experts.  Then they “tested” the article on lots of different people with various ideologies.  You know what they found?  The stronger a person’s ideology, the more likely he or she was to “find” bias in the article.  LOL.
        I guess that explains a lot.  Often  (but certainly not always) bias is in the eye of the beholder.    

        P.S.  Maybe I’m hallucinating, but did your screen name suddenly change from last night?  😉

      8. …”Often  (but certainly not always) bias is in the eye of the beholder.”
        It makes perfect sense to me. Is very hard to accept the truth when it goes against our belief system. That’s why religion survives against common sense, and despite scientific proofs against dogmas.

        “Maybe I’m hallucinating, but did your screen name suddenly change from last night?”
        You’re not! Exploring the settings in the Disqus profile I realized that I had two different accounts, and consolidated both accounts into this one.


      9. Exploring the settings in the Disqus profile I realized that I had two different accounts, and consolidated both accounts into this one.

        Ah, I see.  Well, I’m glad I don’t have to run to the optometrist to get my eyes tested at least.   🙂

      10. You’ve got to read “ALL THE SHAH’S MEN” explains history behind the coup.The best Mid East book is “Great War for Civilization” by Fiske.He was a BBC Correspondent and covered French Algers,Iran, Russian Afgan War, Iraq v Iran and other conflicts. Each chapter gives a historical background so in essence you are getting a history of the entire Middle East. Each chapter stands on its own so you can skip around.

      11. Santorum didn’t promote a no fly zone in Syria. Nor has he said he’d bomb Iran or Pakistan, all he said is that military options (re. Iran) are still on the table. It doesn’t mean he’d use them.

      12. You better start watching the debates, Thanksgiving Forum Santorum said he would bomb Iran’s nuclear reactors.We must sit down with Israel and devise a military strategy.He supports using Drones(bombing) Pakistan and doesn’t consider them a true ally Also wants to use Special forces there.Google ABC News Nov 10 2011 SANTORUM CALLS FOR PREEMPTIVE STRIKE
        “In Santorum’s speech on Iran Thursday, he called for a “preemptive strike” on that country if Iran is indeed building nuclear weapons.”  No fly zone Syria was first proposed by Perry at the National Security debate in Washington, All agreed to it except Paul and possibly RomneyNow let me give you a homework assignment: Google AIPAC contributions to Congress and see who’s one of the biggest receivers, Hint his initials are RS.

      13. I would not consider it torture.  I would consider it unpleasant and I certainly wouldn’t want it done to me.  However can we call something torture when we make members of our spec ops to undergo it for the experience?  It doesn’t cause physical harm.  I’m not necessarily in favor of it being used, but I can see it being done if with high-level terrorists to gather specific intel for an immediate threat.

        Torture, as a interrogation tool, practically speaking does not work.  Morally speaking it is reprehensible.

      14. I hate fallacy: you are comparing the U.S. army with a terrorist. Do you think is morally acceptable for a civilized army (lets say, Canada) to subject an American soldier to waterboarding?

      15. No, you are… that is who we are currently fighting.  I generally don’t agree with the it being used, especially in terms of conventional warfare with two countries having both signed the Geneva Convention.  By and large I don’t think it should be used.  When it is there are very strict parameters.  I’m not cheerleading its use, and in most circumstances it shouldn’t be used.

      16. The thing with moral issues is that they are absolutes: if you say “torture is evil”, then you can’t torture anyone without being “evil” yourself. Is the same when you pretend to be “spreading democracy”, but then plot to oust a democratically-elected president of an oil-rich country. Consistency. That’s what I like about Ron Paul.

      17. Iran 1953, Guatemala 1954, Dominican Republic 1963, Ecuador 1963, Indonesia 1965, Chile 1973, Grenada 1983… I was thinking on the coup against president Mousadeg (not sure about the spelling) in Iran in 1953, but all the others are also valid cases.

      18. You’re right but It’s Mosaddegh the former Prime Minister of Iran.Overthrown by the CIA as favor to British Petroleum. Be careful though, he’s going to ask you for proof. When he does refer him to Kermit Roosevelt’s autobiography.You see Teddy’s son was in charge of the operation.

      19. Thanks for the clarification, interesting the involvement of Teddy Roosevelt’s son. Maybe the compulsion to interventionism is genetic.
        There’s a report of the U.S. Senate on CIA’s covert actions that covers the Iran affair, I guess as a proof it doesn’t get any better than that.
        The Iran coup is a nice piece of evidence on how a seemingly small act can have so many repercussions (small for Americans, of course: for the Iranians was huge).

      20. “Doesn’t cause physical harm” ? There have been suspects who have drowned during this practice, There have been suspects who have also expired from other physical ailments such as heart attack during the interrogation. Get your facts straight.

      21. Oh Ye of little faith. On December 18, 1858 Harpers Weekly reported what was probably the first US death from an early form of water boarding. A black inmate named Moore drowned while being disciplined at Auburn prison.The article is now on display at the New York Historical Society.  Journalist Henri Alleg, who himself was water boarded  reported a high incidence of death among Algerian prisoners water boarded, during the French War in Algeria.(Wikpedia). On June 10 2006, three Guantanamo inmates where found hanging in their cells (suicide?)  after being subjected to waterboarding. This was actually dry- boarding so you will probably tell me it doesn’t count.After WWII Several Japanese were sentenced to death for water boarding US Prisoners. Kind of hypocritical don’t ya think? I presume if you check American pow records there were probably some deaths but since you’re not paying me for research I don’t have the time to delve into that.  Since McCain who was water boarded calls it torture, and since Jessie Ventura who was also water boarded calls it torture why do you prefer to believe Santorium who was neither tortured nor in a war? Ventura says if he water boarded Cheney he could get him to confess to killing Sharon Tate.In a letter to the Attorney General Human Rights Watch stated that water boarding results in broken bones from resisting, damaged lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation and death. What I find Ironic here is that me, an ex policeman is arguing with an Evangelical minister and the minister is the one who’s arguing for torturing prisoners who have not yet been convicted of a crime.It reminds me of the native American Chief put to death by the Spaniards. He was offered baptism and told it would assure him his place in heaven. He asked if there would be Christians there. They said yes and he declined the baptism stating he’d prefer not to go.

      22. Bachman will say anything to get elected, Santorium takes mega bucks from AIPAC (google Santorium/AIPAC) and puts Israel first and thinks nothing of sacrificing American lives on Israel’s behalf. AIPAC has been found guilty of spying on the US and is still allowed to lobby Congress.The only thing these two have in common is that neither has been in the military.Bachman who tauts herself as a tax attorney was actually a tax prosecutor for the IRS.

      23. I think Jesus would have also been a stickler for definitions. “Enhanced interrogation” is Orwellian New Speak for “torture”. Anyone with half a brain knows that is obvious.

      24. Yes Shane, the God who said turn the other cheek would have given the Ok to tying a man down  blindfolding him and simulating drowning.Think you wasted your time in theology class.None other than John McCain has condemned water-boarding.Why don’t you try it out like that Philadelphia radio host.I spent 25 years in law enforcement and Coercion is an ineffective way of gaining information. The subject tells you what you want to hear to stop the coercion,it may not necessarily be true. Many innocent folks have been convicted with forced confessions. How is it a Hawk like Santorium was never in the military?

  2. Any Christian who takes Rick Santorum seriously needs to return to the Bible and ask themselves…where in this Book did Jesus Christ advocate torture, preemptive war, or racial profiling of suspected “criminals”?

    Rick Santorum is a zionist, a neo-con, and a demagogue of the most disgusting sort. This man is NOT a Christian in his actions or his words, and anyone who differs with that assessment needs another crash course in the New Testament.

  3. You’re talking about minutiae like wether is “enhanced interrogation” or torture when the reality is that you don’t have a choice: is either quiting life as we know it, or Ron Paul.

  4. “The Peace institute” you’ve got to be kidding? Every time  Rick Santorium opens his mouth he proposes another war. Pakistan:he supports drones that kill innocent people and supports special forces operation on their sovereign territory.Iran: Regime change(as if we’re entitled to decide what government other people should have) In Iran he supports crippling sanctions that starve the innocent( 250k children died in Iraq but failed to bring down Hussein).Also wants us to bomb them while taking orders from the Israeli high command.Syria: wants to start a new theater of war here. He’s also a racist branding all Muslims as “Radical Islam”. He touts a bogus history that the West fought a 300 year war against radical Islam that ended with  Colonization.Colonization of the Mid East was not the result of a War with radical Islam but the result of War with the very conservative Ottoman Empire in WWI, Colonization was the result of Churchill and Clemenceau’s greed at Versailles against Woodrow Wilson’s wishes. I watched the Thanksgiving Forum and was appalled by fellow Christians cheering calls for Bombs, Torture,and Racial profiling.It was disgusting! If you want to peddle this trash don’t do it in the name of Christianity. Ron Paul is a fine and decent man, married to the same woman for 35 years, He’s a devout Methodist and is staunchly pro life. He’s rejected for seeking an end to war. Barabbas was also preferred to Jesus by the multitude. Nothing has changed in 2000 years,Mr Gordon is against Paul for not favoring a Constitutional Amendment banning Abortion. Paul engages in Realpolitic and knows you will never get 50 States to ratify this when you can’t get Mississippi to ban abortion. He wants to pass a bill that over turns Roe v Wade and open up the States to Reform.Cutting half these abortions is better than pie in the SKY. Every Republican since Reagan promised an end to abortion. Pauls bill would have saved 12, 000,000 lives by now.

  5. It shouldn’t be practiced at all. It’s torture, plain and simple. The “but some of our own troops are subjected to it during training” counter makes a false equivalence. Long-term physical debilitation is but one of several criteria for determining whether a practice is torture. Acts that produce debilitating psychological trauma also constitute torture. A waterboarding session carried out by fellow soldiers and with supportive medical and psychological counseling helping afterwards, as part of training to expose soldiers to examples of techniques they may face, does not rise to nearly the same level as being waterboarded repeatedly while under the “mercy” of hostile captors. That is why the latter situation has been uniformly classified as torture by western nations (including the USA during war crimes trials).

      1. Yes, because it’s torture! And because our nation has signed well established treaties against the use of torture. We’ve also convicted enemies of war crimes for waterboarding. Those who’ve authorized its use have authorized serious crimes. There’s no grey area about it – our country stepped over the line when it waterboarded captives.

Comments are closed.

Get CT In Your Inbox!

Don't miss a single update.

You May Also Like

Iowa U.S. Senate Candidate Profile: Q&A with Joni Ernst

1.  What’s the most rewarding job you’ve held? Joni Ernst: “(Being) a…

Perry vs. Paul, The Dust-up You Didn’t See

The pictures below showing an off camera confrontation between Texas Governor Rick…

Trump: Winning Election Is Only Way I’ll Get to Heaven

Donald Trump during the Pastors & Pews event in Orlando, FL that the only way he may get to heaven is to be elected President and do a good job.

This Negative Ad Does Not Require Spin

The American Conservative Union released a negative ad that features only clips of Democrats and liberals being uncivil and then encourages people to vote.