Election 2016: A Charge to Christian Voters

 

Throwing Marriage Under the Bus

wedding-rings

“…we need to have a lot more choice and a lot more freedom.” ~Senator Ted Cruz

The controversial and heated marriage issue has apparently taken a backseat during the Republican Presidential debates with social issues relegated only to discussion on the defunding of Planned Parenthood. This does not sit well with Christian voters who do care deeply about such a foundational issue as marriage in light of the unconstitutional Obergefell v. Hodges decision in June 2014, and many are now looking to their pastors, national Christian leaders, and even conservative talk show hosts to vet the candidates for them and determine who is the most pro marriage among the twelve remaining in the race who will actually fight to reverse the unconstitutional court decision and fight to restore traditional marriage as the law of the land. 

Freshman Senator Ted Cruz has lucked out as the recently coronated quasi-social issues champ despite the truly shocking statements he has made regarding states’ rights to define marriage. As a self-described strict constitutionalist, Cruz lives and breathes by the 10th Amendment on all issues not specifically stated in our Constitution. He has consistently maintained that his top priority is to defend the Constitution and along with that, preserving states’ rights via the 10th Amendment and he has vowed to challenge the unconstitutional Obergefell vHodges Supreme Court decision forcing all 50 states to legalize gay marriage. By throwing the marriage issue back to the states, Cruz is actually hailed as a defender of traditional marriage since the majority of states have voted to ban gay marriage and this would restore those laws. What many don’t realize is that this also protects states that actually do vote to legalize gay marriage; so we’d again have a state by state definition of marriage, pre-Obergefell v. Hodges, and we’re back to square one with rehashing the argument how unequal it is for some states to recognize gay marriage and others not. What a legal hot mess this is, and Cruz’s policy views instead of cleaning it up, spread this mess far and wide.

What we really need and what conservative Christians have long striven for is a federal marriage amendment defining marriage as only between one man and one woman, but marriage ”defender” Ted Cruz does not agree. This has endeared him to the Libertarian voters out there of a more socially liberal persuasion who believe and trust Cruz at his word that he will not pursue a federal definition of marriage, and it explains why he has successfully courted and wooed gay marriage supporters to donate to his campaign.

How does the evangelical community reconcile themselves to accept Cruz’s state by state marriage policy? Have they caved on the fight for traditional marriage or does Ted Cruz whisper in the ears of his prominent Christian endorsers something different that has led them to believe he actually will fight for a federal definition of marriage after taking office as president? So, is it more acceptable for Ted Cruz to mislead his Libertarian leaning supporters who expect his hands off approach to the marriage issue or the evangelical leaders who have put their stock and reputations as conservative and biblical stalwarts on the line by endorsing him? When even the National Organization for Marriage endorses a 10th Amendment apologist for gay or anything goes marriage, you have wonder what exactly is going on.

I have found no evidence to date that a President Ted Cruz would lead the fight for, much less talk about, the need for a national definition of marriage. I challenge anyone to produce evidence he has ever publicly gone on the offense in the culture war on the marriage issue as Rick Santorum has for the last 15 years. I’ve searched and can find nothing. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

 Cruz, in fact, has said some of the doggonest  statements about a federal marriage amendment I dare say he’d ever repeat at the numerous churches he’s spoken at and religious liberty rallies he’s held across the country. Maybe Bob Vander Plaats, Dr. James Dobson, and Tony Perkins don’t keep up with Cruz’s numerous excursions on mainstream media and missed this candid discussion on how he would govern on the marriage issue if he were president. (Or maybe they do know and don’t believe him, have accepted the the battle for a marriage amendment is a lost cause, or they know it’s just (wink wink nudge nudge) what he has to say depending on whom he is talking to.

On October 5, 2014 Cruz was interviewed on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” and when the question came up about how a more Libertarian candidate, like himself, could square on social issues with conservative voters, he referenced the marriage debate as an example of how the 10th Amendment was the solution to prevent the federal government, or the courts, from dictating what marriage is and forcing it on all 50 states.

Cruz went even further, comparing a federal policy on marriage to Obamacare as a big government, one-size fits all solution forced on all 50 states and that it’s good that people can decide for themselves, that it’s good we have choices.

Watch the clip from the interview:

 

Here is a transcript of the marriage question portion of the Squawk Box interview with the aforementioned quotes highlighted in bold:

Becky Quick: “Senator, you yourself talked about introducing anti-gay marriage legislation, trying to protect the rights of the states you said, but at the same time you’ve also said that what the Supreme Court did by not ruling on the states that have allowed gay marriage that that was tragic and indefensible.”

Cruz: “You, you, you are exactly right. Look, look I believe in the Constitution. I think we need to follow the Constitution .What the Supreme Court did, effectively striking down the laws of 30 states was wrong, and it was judicial activism.” 

Becky Quick: “But if a state chooses to allow people of the same sex to marry shouldn’t they be allowed to do that?”

Cruz: “Yes. No, no, no, I agree and perhaps you, you are not understanding my position. Marriage is a question for the states. We have the federalist system. It is marriage has been a question for the states since the beginning of this country.”

……continued

Andrew Ross Sorkin: “What’s your position if you were running a specific state though?  That’s the issue.”

Cruz: “Actually Andrew, with all respect that is not the issue. The issue is constitutionally should the federal government or the federal courts impose their policy views in the place of the policy views of citizens of states.  Look we’ve got 50 states. If the citizens of New York decide they want gay marriage, they have the Constitutional authority to make that decision and if the citizens of Texas or South Carolina or Florida decide they want to maintain traditional marriage between one man and one woman they have that Constitutional authority.  You know Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis referred to ‘laboratories of democracy.’ You’ve got 50 states where we can have in each state the laws reflect the values and mores of the citizens of those states.”

Joe Kernen: “The GOP needs to figure out how to balance the social issues and the Libertarian issues because Libertarians you would think they want small government, they want government out of people’s lives and yet the social conservatives seem like that’s the one area where they let government come into everyone’s lives.”

Cruz: “Look  now, it is simply that government should reflect the values and mores of citizens. Listen, I support marriage between one man and one woman and I support the Constitution letting each state decide its marriage laws consistent with the values of its citizens. You know, one of the problems of the big government Left is they want everything to be a one-size fits all solution from Washington.  Take Obamacare. Listen, a state has constitutional authority if it wants to adopt socialized healthcare, a state can vote to do that. And if people decide I want to live in a state with socialized healthcare, I can move there. Now maybe they might not be able to find jobs because of the impact on small businesses and job creation,  but one of the big problems of the Obama agenda is every solution comes from Washington and is forced on all 50 states regardless of whether the citizens want it and it doesn’t let people vote with their feet, it doesn’t let people have any choice, and I think we need to have a lot more choice and a lot more freedom.”

You heard it. Ted Cruz made it abundantly clear what he truly thinks of the federal government having anything to do with marriage policy, and that includes a possible federal definition of marriage. Comparing it to Obamacare??  That a federal definition of marriage being “forced” on us as law is bad and we need to have choices? This would indeed even include a federal definition of marriage as only between one man and one woman, a covenant relationship clearly revealed in nature, since the beginning of time, as only between one man and one woman. 

Equally shocking is Cruz’s reference to progressive Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis who was appointed to the court by President Woodrow Wilson. The fact that a self described conservative like Ted Cruz upholds Brandeis as his model for interpreting the Constitution should trouble all conservatives because it was Brandeis who penned and popularized the non-existent “right to privacy” argument with regards to our Constitution, thus severing Natural Law from the basis for all law at any governmental level. Brandeis is hailed as a leader of the Progressive Era for championing and implementing radical social change via his tenure on the court. How does Cruz’s admiration for Brandeis’ style of interpreting Constitutional law square with the strong and outspoken social conservative leaders who have not only endorsed Cruz but have been aggressively campaigning for him? Imagine what kind of justices a President Ted Cruz would appoint to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court. If Brandeis is his ideal, you can kiss the issue of marriage good bye for the forseeable future.

 

When the Shepherds Become the Sheep

 

Sheeple for Hillary

Where’s the Christian outrage over this? Why is this affront to God, to His Natural Law, acceptable to the 99 Pastors movement aggressively rounding up Christian voters, herding them like sheep, to go Caucus for Ted Cruz? Instead of challenging Cruz on this wholly unbiblical view of marriage, we have Christian leaders, columnists, talk hosts, and organizations doubling down on their support for him and fearmongering how devastating it would be if evangelicals do not turn out in droves to vote for him. He’s even been routinely introduced at his many church and faith based appearances as “God’s Chosen One” and “God’s Anointed One” and those who do not support him are chastised for going against God. Ted Cruz is “the one we’ve all been waiting for” and we can expect dozens and dozens of pastors throughout Iowa to passionately coerce their flocks this Sunday to follow their lead and round up every family member, every co-worker, every neighbor to vote for their American Savior or we are done for. An overly emotional Glenn Beck publicly said as much at his recent spectacle of a rally in Waterloo, Iowa where he dubbed Cruz as the new George Washington and performed a mock swearing into office with Cruz placing his hand upon a Bible. It’s getting pretty weird out there. Just check social media for this battle. It’s downright ugly at times.

Recall that several conservative Christian candidates in the 2012 presidential race were bypassed because their 10th Amendment defense of state defined marriage was deemed unacceptable, and nationally known Christian leaders and organizations roundly endorsed conservative culture warrior Rick Santorum instead. Santorum was the only candidate in the race who not only supported a federal definition of marriage but actually introduced and fought for such an amendment in 2003 before the issue grew into the huge legal debacle it is today. Santorum not only was proactive on preserving traditional marriage and leading on other critical moral and cultural issues during and after his tenure in Congress but he has taken the arrows and slings like no other for doing so. 

 

Religious Liberty and Gay Marriage Don’t Mix

A beaker filled with water to which oil has been added, demonstrating insolubility of oil in water.

A self-proclaimed champion of religious liberty, Ted Cruz holds dozens of religious liberty rallies across the country and thunderously sermonizes in true televangelist style about the injustices of several featured individuals and businesses attending his rallies who have suffered legal persecution because of their opposition to gay marriage. The irony here is that under a Ted Cruz policy on marriage, those individuals and businesses would suffer the very same persecution had their states voted to legalize gay marriage. Aaron and Melissa Klein, the Oregon Cake Bakers sued by a gay couple and forced out of their business for refusing to bake a cake for their wedding would face legal and criminal charges if Oregon had actually voted to make gay marriage state law. Despite this, the Kleins have actually endorsed Ted Cruz for president. Unbelievable.

                 Sweet-Cakes

Rowan County clerk Kim Davis is shown in this booking photo provided by the Carter County Detention Center in Grayson, Kentucky September 3, 2015. Davis was jailed on Thursday for refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, and a full day of court hearings failed to put an end to her two-month-old legal fight over a U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding same-sex marriage. REUTERS/Carter County Detention Center/Handout via Reuters ATTENTION EDITORS - FOR EDITORIAL USE ONLY. NOT FOR SALE FOR MARKETING OR ADVERTISING CAMPAIGNS. THIS PICTURE WAS PROVIDED BY A THIRD PARTY. REUTERS IS UNABLE TO INDEPENDENTLY VERIFY THE AUTHENTICITY, CONTENT, LOCATION OR DATE OF THIS IMAGE. THIS PICTURE IS DISTRIBUTED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED BY REUTERS, AS A SERVICE TO CLIENTS - RTX1R0AF

Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis would have lost her job had Kentucky voted to legalize gay marriage. Like oil and water, religious liberty and legal gay marriage cannot coexist. In any state that legalizes gay and alternative forms of marriage, the entire legal and cultural landscape of that state must be radically altered to accommodate the new law forcing reeducation in schools, at work, in businesses, etc. and altering adoption laws and more. Watch the video below for a look at the radical transformation of Massachusetts after gay marriage was legalized and you see how dangerous to individual liberty and religious freedom a Ted Cruz 10th Amendment policy on marriage truly would be. 

 

A federal marriage amendment recognizing traditional marriage as the only definition of marriage would protect people like the Kleins and Kim Davis from the persecution they have suffered, and 31 states did in fact vote to ban gay marriage prior to the Supreme Court decision forcing all 50 states to institute gay marriage as the law. This fight is winnable with the right man in the White House who will indeed fight to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges and take that fight for a federal marriage amendment to all 50 states and get it passed as law. 

 

 

Ted Cruz –  Leading the Surrender Caucus on Marriage

 

Surrender blank

Despite the distinct possibility we still can win this battle over marriage, Ted Cruz’s state defined view now is the sub-standard accepted by pro marriage stalwarts who themselves have long sought a federal definition of marriage. It’s a cataclysmic surrender on the issue like none before. Backing a candidate who would not be caught standing with them on the Capitol steps in a pro marriage amendment  rally? Backing a candidate who has met with wealthy gay donors and assured them he will not pursue a federal definition of marriage and instead would fight to defend states’ rights to define marriage? Backing a candidate who supports an infinite variety of marriage definitions?

As Senator Rick Santorum warned back in 2003, where does one draw the line regarding how far marriage can legally be deconstructed? If a state decides to legalize polygamy, that’s okay with Ted Cruz. If a state votes to legalize incestuous marriage, that’s okay with him, too. Three women? Fine.  A man wedding his mule? That’s fine too. And it is already happening, folks. Everything is acceptable just as long as the people and state legislatures decide and not the courts or the federal government. This, ladies and gentleman, is your social issues standard bearer of a candidate this election, selected for you by influential Christian leaders and talk show hosts who have chosen to throw a true and proven social issues warrior under the bus because Cruz is the one who has billionaire backers, a fat campaign warchest, major media attention, and organization. Ted Cruz can WIN! Is what we all are told, and for the sake of winning, we MUST all coalesce around him and get him across the GOP primary finish line. Forget principle and conviction, go with the guy who at least can say “Personally I’m for traditional marriage, but….”   That is pretty much what we had with the social issues milquetoast Romney last election, but since this is Ted Cruz, it’s A-ok.  We surrendered this societal shaking issue to the Left in 2012.  A Cruz nomination would do the same. 

To be sure, Ted Cruz is not the only candidate invoking the 10th Amendment argument on the marriage issue. He is joined by every candidate in the Republican field except two, Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee, both who vow to fight for a federal definition of marriage, Santorum being the only one who has actually led and fought on this issue on the federal level.  It is quite shocking that the historically socially liberal Donald Trump, likewise, has garnered a goodly number of endorsements from pastors and Christian leaders who have put on spiritual blinders. Cruz, though, is the candidate being roundly touted as the Christian candidate we must all support to win. Christian Dominionist movers and shakers, like political operative David Lane and historian David Barton, who have infiltrated mainstream Christianity with their unbiblical end of times Seven Mountain Mandate theology, are putting the pedal to the medal leaving no church unvisited by Cruz’s fellow Dominionist father, Rafael Cruz in laying the groundwork since 2013 for Ted’s very ambitious and premature run for the presidency. Iowa talk jock Steve Deace has been a major facilitator promoting and organizing for Cruz since 2013 and uses his program as an extension of the Cruz campaign. 

The fact that Ted Cruz has been bestowed the title of social issues hero and has scarfed up for himself prime endorsements despite the fact he has passed no legislation on faith and family values issues nor even led the fight on them during his thus brief stint in office is more than perplexing.  To his credit he did make a very brief detour off the fulltime campaign trail back to DC in a hasty effort to defund Planned Parenthood.  He enjoyed a good deal of press out of it, and his campaign circulated a mass solicitation for donations because Ted once again “stood up!” but he was soon back on the campaign trail with another battle surrendered to the Left with the spoils of yet another failed battle being a fatter campaign warchest and another brownie point added to his claim of being a social conservative.

 

The Deciding Factor

So, Christians have a tough decision before them when they go to caucus in Iowa on February 1 and all the primary contests in the states to follow. Do they cave to the groupthink that they must vote for Ted Cruz because he’s “leading in the polls” and has lots of money and organization to win as the 99 Pastors mantra dictates to them? What do they win by surrendering this issue to a man who likely will appoint Supreme Court judges who also share his 10th Amendment argument for state defined marriage? After all, Ted Cruz did in fact recommend, nominate, and vote to confirm an openly gay judge to the federal bench in Texas. Yes, yes he did. Or will evangelicals prayerfully seek God’s direction and look inward to their conscience and core beliefs to put the right man in office who will honor the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God? What does a Ted Cruz society look like compared to one under the policies of a President Santorum? If forcing gay and alternative marriages on you at the federal level is wrong, are you okay with it being forced on you by your state? But hey, if you don’t like the new law you can always just pull up your roots,  pack up your family, and move to a state that still bans gay marriage. Simple as that. Yes, this is the solution suggested by Ted Cruz. Is that the America we have to accept now, or can we still fight back? Is there a leader anywhere who still sees the battle worth fighting to get where we need to be again? I say resoundingly, YES! 

I implore you to watch the stark comparison on the issue of marriage between Ted Cruz and Rick Santorum and use your own discretion to vet which man belongs in the White House. Which man understands how critical it is that marriage be preserved as the foundational institution for our free and civil society to not only continue on and thrive but to survive? 

 

Santorum, unlike Cruz, does not believe it’s good we have “choices” on what marriage can be, and he sticks by his core biblical belief that we cannot have 50 definitions of marriage and what is clearly revealed in Natural Law cannot be redefined by government at any level. Ted Cruz has, in essence, severed the Declaration of Independence from the Constitution in his defense of state defined marriage and points to the 10th Amendment as the blueprint for the genesis of societies since our Constitution was ratified . Santorum maintains the two founding documents are inextricably tethered and no law at either the state or federal level can redefine or violate what is clearly evident in the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God. He further warns that supporters of limited government who, like Cruz, reference the 10th Amendment as the barrier to an oppressive dictate from the federal level are willing to tolerate the very same restrictive laws at the state level. Santorum cites Natural Law as the backstop to prevent the imposition of unjust laws on the people at any government level. Have you heard any other candidate talk like this?  Yet this is the candidate Christians are being told to throw under the bus this time. 

 Was there something wrong with Rick Santorum as a candidate in 2012 that spurred so many in the Christian, mainly evangelical community to abandon him for a second try for the presidency? Actually there was everything right  about him, and he proved as much and more that despite running the barest of shoestring campaigns and with zero to scant media attention, he came out of nowhere and almost took out the establishment anointed one, Mitt Romney, despite being exponentially outspent time and again, winning the Iowa Caucus and 10 more states, finishing second in 13 more by the time he was forced to suspend. By that time he had won more counties than the entire Republican field combined, double the counties won by Romney alone. Santorum has the 6th highest vote and state tally in political history for a runner up to his party’s nomination. The last time anyone accomplished a feat like this was Ronald Reagan in his 1976 presidential campaign. 

 Santorum was the blue collar, socially conservative Christian underdog who commanded overwhelming support from Christians and conservatives across the nation who saw and trusted him as a true doer of his word based on his stellar character and a track record to match of fighting and winning on the issues most near and dear to their hearts. For years he was the “point man” to whom all major Christian organizations and leaders looked to for driving their issues in the Senate. In fact, TIME Magazine listed Santorum, a Catholic, as one of the Top 25 Evangelicals in the country in their February 2005 magazine, and Santorum even refers to himself as an Evangelical Catholic. 

The Perfect Candidate for Such A Time as This

The only thing wrong with Santorum’s campaign was lack of funding in the end, and he was forced out after keeping up his valiant David vs Goliath battle into April.  In the end it wasn’t just Rick Santorum vs. Mitt Romney.  Every establishment force and entity possible came out of the woodwork to rally for Romney and conducted a 24/7 assault of the airwaves calling for Santorum to cease his faith and grace propelled Little Engine That Could  campaign and drop out because the extended primaries were “damaging” party unity. The reality was in the end it  was Rick Santorum vs. Mitt Romney/the RNC/Sheldon Adelson/Donald Trump/Newt Gingrich/Ron Paul/billionaire funded Super PACS/ and every single RNC establishment talking head shill on Fox News including Bill O’Reilly, Dick Morris, and Fox News establishment barnacle Karl Rove and his trusty sidekick, Mr. Whiteboard. Add in all the DNC controlled national “news” networks who gave Santorum’s campaign scant coverage and round the clock repeated the Romney campaign mantra that Santorum had no chance of reaching the delegate threshold to clinch the nomination and we see the staggering coalition that came together to force him out.  Just think about that for a minute. It took all the aforementioned individuals and entities with all their mega millions of dollars, influence, and endless airtime to take Santorum out. Absolutely incredible! If that is not proof of what a powerhouse candidate is, I don’t know what is. How Rick Santorum’s campaign not only survived but thrived on the paltry 22 million he raised all primary season deserves a special chapter in the political history books. In my lifetime I can’t recall any candidate for national office who went so far and accomplished so much on so little. Proof positive of a smartly and lean run campaign governed by frugality, priorities, and self discipline.  Exactly the type of leadership fed up voters were looking for to take over the reins in D.C.   Tragically for our nation, enough voters eventually caved to the media lies and spin and lost heart, and their support dropped off to the point Santorum could go on no further. So after setting off such a firestorm of panic throughout the GOP establishment, media, and the Democrat Party in 2012, imagine the absolute hysteria that would arise from Rick Santorum re-entering the presidential ring in 2016. 

In assessing the possibilities for the 2016 race, common sense would dictate that should Santorum decide to run again, the way to win and win big would be to keep intact all his support from the 2012 race and build on that with the goal of fixing the one area of his campaign that prevented him from going on: funding.  He clearly was the winning messenger with the winning message who was seen as authentic and trustworthy and who truly connected with and resonated with people across the socioeconomic spectrum of America. It’s how Reagan won in a landslide in 1980 after his heroic but failed attempt in 1976.  No, there’s nothing wrong with Rick Santorum and in fact, he was as perfect a candidate a conservative Christian voter could hope for.  And this is why there is ZERO primetime media coverage of him and his campaign ever since the humiliating Romney loss to Obama in 2012. The establishment forces who sought so hard to take Santorum out in 2012 don’t want you to ever see and hear him again for the very same reason they did their darnedest to get rid of him then; they know he will follow through on exactly what he says he will do. He’s going to actually talk about and act on issues like family, marriage, life, and religious liberty. Issues that make the big dog donors and bosses of the party extremely uncomfortable and squeamish. The message from the RNC establishment via the blackballing they ordered on Santorum is that Iowa got it wrong in 2012 and by so disrespecting their Caucus winner via the media snub, Iowa had best get it right this time and vote for one of their approved moderates.

Talk show host Laura Ingraham shed some light on the RNC plan to shut Rick Santorum out of the 2016 election when she had him on her show a few weeks after Romney lost the 2012 election to Obama. This is a transcript of her revelation to him on her February 4, 2013 show:

Ingraham: “Senator, I know that Patriot Voices is your new site, and you’ve written a lot about  not only the culture but what the Republican  Party can do next. I will say that when I was at this dinner the other week, and these were all former cabinet members, some former Bush and Reagan officials, you know what they invariably, one after the other, came up to me and said? ‘What are we going to do about these, uh, you know, how right, far right the party’s gone?’, you know, kind of what Colin Powell has said, and your name came up a couple of times. I’ve got to say, like ‘we have to make sure that someone like a Rick Santorum doesn’t run again’. And I’m just like ‘Why are you telling me this?’  Why do they feel like they should tell me this?  Do they think that I’m going to say ‘Oh yeah that’s good idea. Abandon all social issues.’”

Listen to this portion of the interview 

 

 

Did you get that? RNC heavyweights “have to make sure” Santorum never runs again. What better way to thwart a repeat of Santorum’s 2012 brushfire success than to make sure voters can’t see and hear him on major media, namely Republican viewer magnet shows like Fox News Special Report and all the Fox News primetime shows? Did you know that the last time Bill O’Reilly had Rick Santorum on his program was in DECEMBER 2013?  Yes, over TWO years ago! Sean Hannity covered 4 days of the big campaign launching CPAC in February 2015 on his nightly TV show, and although the 2012 runner up, Rick Santorum was a featured speaker there and his speech was warmly received, had you tuned in to Hannity’s shows that week you would never have known Santorum was even there. At CPAC, Hannity pledged to give as much TV and radio airtime as possible to EACH candidate from that point on until the primaries; and he covered every candidate at the venue with live interviews and/or video footage of their speeches and interviews. Everyone, that is, EXCEPT for Rick Santorum. Why?

When Santorum  announced his candidacy from a factory floor in Butler, PA on May 27, 2015, Hannity, who covered most of the candidates live for a full hour during or shortly after their announcements, did have Santorum on for all of 4 minutes late that evening and didn’t have him on again until 7 weeks after for the full hour he promised to give all candidates. He hasn’t had him on again since or even mentioned his name. Again, why? Megyn Kelly last had Rick Santorum on her show sometime back in 2011 during the 2012 Republican primary contest and hasn’t had him on to talk with her since. She has not even so much as acknowledged he is even running. A sub host for Kelly had Santorum on twice since then for 2 and 3 minute tidbits, and the time was largely relegated to asking him about other candidates in the race and NOT about any details of his policies and vision for America. Every candidate has had a revolving door invite on all the aforementioned programs on Fox News, and they all have enjoyed easy rides to the top of the polls. All that is, except Rick Santorum.  And you wonder why his poll numbers have been so low, relegating him to “undercard” status in the afternoon rush hour traffic debates. 

Fox News has had Santorum on their mid morning and afternoon shows for table scrap moments here and there when viewership is the lowest, and again, most of these if-you-blinked-you-missed-it appearances were dedicated to asking him about his low poll numbers (surprise surprise) and about other candidates. Fox News grudgingly covered Santorum’s 2015 presidential announcement live and immediately after, broke away to their popular pundit populated dinner hour show, The Five, whereby the elitist “political experts” on the program proceeded to trash Santorum as a washed up hasbeen with a message nobody cares about or wants to hear (despite the fact it’s Santorum’s blue collar populace message that practically every candidate has hijacked as their own campaign blueprint.) Dripping with scorn and disdain, the hosts even mocked Santorum’s smart and catchy campaign theme song Take Back America. I can find no video of this unprecedented, disgusting and brazen display of disrespect for a presidential candidate, but radio host Mark Levin had a lot to say about it on his show. NO other candidate in the eventual field of 17 was treated in this despicable fashion. This is the appalling disrespect given the strong horse runner up in 2012. Can you imagine Mitt Romney being so disparaged as a presidential contender for 2012 like this after 2008?

Why have C-SPAN cameras time and again suddenly developed “technical problems” at national conservative speaking venues just before Santorum takes the stage and miraculously work again right after he’s finished? Why have his taped speeches at events covered by C-SPAN been routinely omitted from the replay loop of the events on TV? Why only his? Why have some prominent videos of Santorum in the C-SPAN archives suddenly been disabled and manipulated after being circulated on social media? Why have all the other candidates’ speeches at some national conservative summits and forums been recorded and posted on youtube by the event hosts but not Santorum’s?  Why are podcasts of national radio shows missing his interview portions of the shows? As a social media watchdog for Santorum since 2011, I can confirm this has been happening since shortly after the 2012 election, and it happens a lot. And I do mean a lot. Seems to me some people are going to great lengths to keep him out of the spotlight, wouldn’t you say? I think we can pretty much rule out coincidence. 

This is why most of you likely haven’t seen or heard Rick Santorum at all on any major media despite the fact he’s out there working his heart out doing it the hard way, again, visiting the good people of the 99 counties in Iowa. It’s really difficult to launch a national campaign in all the states if you don’t get any national coverage, and this goes for all the liberal network news as well. They will NOT cover him at all, either. Pretty easy to deduce what’s going on here. Fox News is the media arm of the establishment run RNC, and Santorum, as the anti-establishment candidate who nearly toppled their chosen one in 2012, must be put away for doing so, and the 2016 race has been wargamed to make it near impossible for his return and repeat. The liberal media  also fear him due to his authentic blue collar appeal as proven by his gritty Rocky Balboa performance in the 2012 race, and they see him as a real threat again. And top national conservative talk hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck shun and avoid mentions of Santorum because they are insulating their surefire winner, big donor backed candidate Ted Cruz from a direct challenge from Santorum. It’s Santorum’s supporters from 2012 Cruz is largely gunning for, so he’s getting lots of help from Limbaugh and Co. to help put Santorum out of sight and out of mind. Santorum on the big stage with the unaccomplished freshman “legend in his own mind” senator would yield a very different race right now. There just is no comparison on presidential prowess and readiness for this huge job promotion. No comparison whatsoever. A huge disservice is being visited upon not just Rick Santorum and his campaign but also on the voters of America who have the right to see and hear him and ALL the candidates offering their service to lead this nation. I think it’s safe to say that Rick Santorum is the most feared man in politics by both the Republican establishment and the liberal Left. Just let that sink into your noggins a bit. 

So Santorum is forced, yet again, to light the fire in Iowa like last time, and Christian and conservative voters can fuel that to a 50 state blaze this time if they just do what they know is the right thing to do.The man and his message are there and we need him more than ever.

 

 

 

Ted Cruz, Social Conservative: “Bueller? Bueller?”

Cruz, for all his guttural, televangelist rhetoric (he is quite the gifted speaker) calling for a national spiritual revival, while passing around a deep campaign collection plate, has never demonstrated his reputation as a social conservative with anything but his rhetoric and fails miserably at understanding how profoundly wrong he is believing our nation can withstand this continued assault on faith and family via legal anything goes marriage in any state. Either he just can’t connect the dots to see the big picture as Santorum does or he’s trying to appear to be on both sides of the marriage issue for political expediency. Either way, he’s wrong. And if he’s employing deception at any level just to win votes, he’s willing to lie to get there. Does the ninth commandment not apply to Ted Cruz? Are Christians comfortable with a presidential candidate who will lie to win and excuse him because he feels he needs to do this to get there? You can bet that any politician who lies to get votes will also lie once in office, and this is not the only issue on which Ted Cruz’s honesty has been challenged. His denial of supporting his own amendments to the Gang of Eight immigration bill is the most glaring and troubling public display of outright lying I’ve seen since Bill Clinton’s on camera denial of inappropriate relations with a young White House intern. Watch and see for yourself how at ease Cruz is with spewing whoppers in the face of mass evidence to the contrary. If he again is trying to appear to be on both sides of the fence on yet another critical issue, what does that say about Cruz so willing to use groups of voters as pawns for political purposes? Here, using the 11 million illegal immigrants who heard him say for over 2 years that he would allow legal status for them to come out of the shadows and on the marriage issue using either his Libertarian supporters or pro-traditional marriage Christians who believe he believes as they believe. This is a polished, calculating politician, NOT a statesman. 

 

It’s breathtaking to me how Christians not only excuse Ted Cruz for this but adamantly defend him and deny he said what he clearly said. (For a full and thoroughly researched and documented report on Ted Cruz and his immigration amendments, read the post by my guest blogger, Fact Matter, a longtime immigration policy watchdog.) 

Big issues are at stake in this election, and voting for an angry figurehead with a huge campaign warchest who claims God is on his side is not the answer. We have that in both the Cruz and Trump campaigns. We need a leader who is on God’s side, not one who believes he is God’s gift to America who is never to be held in judgement. That makes all the difference in the world. 

It’s up to you, Iowa, to repel the lassos being thrown around your collective necks by your pastors who have been branded into in the Cruz and Trump camps who know so much better than you  who belongs in the White House.  In saner times we could rely on our spiritual leaders to employ principles and core convictions in endorsing a leader who has demonstrated strict adherence to the biblical life precepts they preach and teach from the pulpit. But when your shepherd, himself, has become one of the sheep corralled by political operatives who have infiltrated mainstream Christianity and are pushing a candidate on you who doesn’t meet the standards of trust, honesty, and commitment to uphold and preserve the Judeo-Christian precepts that undergird our free and civil society, it’s time to go with what YOU know is true, not with what you are being told. 

I’m not in any way questioning Ted Cruz’s relationship with God, but I am questioning his discernment as a potential leader of our nation. And if we have a nominee who is essentially on the same side of the culture war as Ron Paul and even the Democrat nominee on the marriage issue, it’s a lose-lose situation for not only our party but for America. If you are a pastor drinking the “you HAVE to vote for TED CRUZ to win” kool-aid, you are backing the wrong candidate and I suspect many of you actually know it. Yes, Ted Cruz has the money, but Rick Santorum is the proven messenger with the winning message. As hard as Cruz tries to step into Santorum’s shadow and adopt his message, it’s an inauthentic schtick, and voters know it. Boy, will they know it especially in the general election.  If political operatives, emotional talk show hosts, and purveyors of unscriptural theology can convince you to support someone like Ted Cruz and you are so impressed by his ability to induce crowds to 13 minute long standing ovations with his soaring, growling, sermonizing rhetoric, you are farming out your duty to vet biblically  and vet according to who should be trusted with the presidency. If you have endorsed Ted Cruz, there is still time to retract and urge your congregation to seek guidance from God and pay attention to the candidates themselves and what they offer to this country with their background, plans, and vision. 

Vet wisely.  I have, and there is no other who has my full trust and support for president but Rick Santorum. I urge Christians to ignore the polls, pundits, and media, all the misguided Christian leaders and organizations who have chosen to shun him only because they are putting their stock in polls and money this time, and go vote with your principles and convictions on who should be president, not who you are told can win. You do this and not only will we have a repeat of Santorum’s brushfire success in 2012 but he can take it all the way to the White House. And that is a win-win not just for the marriage issue but for all of America. And I have to add that I am so very grateful that Ronald Reagan gave it another shot.