politics – Page 71 – Warren Throckmorton

Gingrich backed by casino mogul – Is gambling a family value?

I wonder how many of Newt Gingrich’s family values voters are aware that Gingrich is beholden to Sheldon Adelson, billionaire casino owner. According to these reports, Adelson recently gave Gingrich’s SuperPac $5 million.

In the Philadelphia Inquirer article, Gingrich is called a “close friend” of Adelson. A conversation between Adelson and his right hand man, Michael Levin indicates how the gambling mogul cast Romney as a ruthless money man. Apparently it takes lots of money to criticize someone else who has lots of money.

According to the Washington Post, the lion’s share of Gingrich’s financial support comes from Adelson who also counts on Gingrich for policies favorable to Israel. The Post article provides some important background to understand how necessary Adelson has been for Gingrich’s career after he left Congress.

According to an anti-gambling website affiliated with the Institute for American Values, Gingrich’s friendship with Adelson involves more than common ground on Israel:

When he was House speaker, Gingrich helped Adelson combat union organizing efforts at his gaudy Venetian casino in Vegas. Gingrich also backed legislation in 1998 to preserve tax deductions beneficial to the industry, The Times reported. Adelson has donated millions to Gingrich in the past and let him use his corporate jet.

At least one social conservative, Richard Land, editor of the Christian Post and prominent Southern Baptist leader was quoted back in April, 2011 as indifferent to Gingrich’s ties to Adelson.

Gingrich’s tight ties with Adelson could cause heartburn for some social conservatives who oppose gambling. Land, of the Baptist group, said “Gambling is a nefarious industry that corrupts everything it touches.”

But Land said that thus far he is not concerned about the ties, unless Gingrich decides to back the expansion of gambling or Internet gambling or if the criminal investigation leads to charges against the Sands.

I wonder how many religious conservatives even know about these ties? Gingrich is taking money derived from an industry which Land says “corrupts everything it touches.” Via Adelson’s donations, it certainly has touched Gingrich.

Land is certainly in a position to write about Gingrich’s ties to the gambling industry as editor of the Christian Post. However, I don’t recall seeing any articles there or in any evangelical news source about these matters. I think these matters might be relevant to evangelical voters.

South Carolina: Final Results

Final results…

Gingrich won evangelicals even though Santorum got a collective push from evangelical “leaders.” SC evangelicals didn’t get the memo.

Gingrich scares me. He has a reputation for intelligence and yet he thinks David Barton is a great historian.

Did evangelical support for Santorum sink him in South Carolina?

On January 14, Rick Santorum announced that he had become the consensus social conservative candidate by virtue of a vote at a meeting of 150 social conservatives in Texas.

On that date, he was polling at 14.7% in South Carolina, according to Real Clear Politics. Today, one day before the South Carolina primary, Santorum has declined to 11.2% while Newt Gingrich, the other contender for the social conservative vote, has surged into the lead, now at 32.4%.

Gingrich is surging despite losing out in the Texas sweepstakes and the accusation from his ex-wife that he sought an open marriage prior to their divorce.

Santorum had started to sink on January 10 so perhaps his decline is related to something other than the evangelical endorsements. In any case, the endorsements, for all of the fanfare from the evangelical leaders, have not had the desired effect. Apparently, they do not have the clout they imagined.

For a different slant, see the results of this Lifeway survey: Talking about personal faith may not have desired effect.

You can’t make this stuff up: South Carolina endorsements for Rick Santorum

If I wanted to write a parody of an anti-gay, Mormon-baiting news release, I couldn’t do a better job than this real one from three South Carolina fundamentalists claiming to be evangelicals and to speak for evangelicals.

Some money lines:

Days before Saturday’s GOP Presidential primary here, there are signs that South Carolina evangelical Protestant leaders are starting to follow the lead of peers in Iowa and Houston who have rejected Mitt Romney, a Mormon, in favor of Rick Santorum, a Catholic. The driving thrust of the evangelical argument: Homosexuality.

Mills said, “The Word of Almighty God, from the Books of Moses to those of the Apostle Paul, commands faithful Jews and Christians to be homophobic. Carolinans have a God-fearing homophobia, while Mitt Romney wrongly endorses homosexuality as a good choice for our young people.

Rev. Mills said, “Because Rick Santorum was willing to sign this wonderful Iowa vow last summer while Romney was calling for more gay hiring and other silly liberal things that Massachusetts RINOs embrace, I’d say Senator Santorum has proven himself a courageous Catholic Christian whom any Bible-believing Jew, Protestant or evangelical can support. He does not drink the anti-science Kool-Aid to the effect that homosexuality is inherited and immutable like fingerprints.

[Endorser Molotov] Mitchell said, “Mitt Romney is kind of like the RINO country club hetero version of Dan Savage, and in his own vacuous way, far more dangerous to hetero-traditionalism. I hope Santorum makes a big splash on Romney’s empty suit this Saturday.”

Rev. Mills said, “Romney’s liberal support for homosexuality is not only at doctrinal odds with traditional Judaism and Christianity, it’s even at odds with latter-day cults like Islam and Mormonism. As an evangelical pastor, my core problem with Romney is not necessarily with the fact that he has been an elder in the cult of Mormonism – which holds that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri, that we have a Heavenly Father and Father and that Jesus is the created brother of Satan – but rather, that Romney rejects traditionalist Mormon stands as well as basic Judeo-Christian stands against homosexuality in favor of a cluelessly-liberal, anti-family public policy.

The “wonderful” marriage vow referred to above that Santorum signed was the one that initially said, “Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President.”

Those familiar with Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill might remember Molotov Mitchell. He is the friend of Martin Ssempa who misled his audiences with falsehoods about the scope of the bill and offered his support for passage of the legislation.

I wonder if Rick Santorum will tout this endorsement…

Another Ron Paul endorser cites the death penalty for homosexuality

Today on Ron Paul’s website, an article by pastor Voddie Baucham is touted on the front page. The article titled, “Baptist Pastor Explains ‘Why Ron Paul?,'” provides reasons why Rev. Baucham believes Ron Paul should be elected. Clearly, the Paul campaign believes this is an important endorsement (as they did the endorsement of Phil Kayser).

Baucham is often cited on theonomy websites (e.g., American Vision and Theonomy Resources). Baucham is a proponent of removing all children from the public schools and an opponent of having age based youth groups.

In a 2009 blog post, Baucham wrote critically of President Obama’s June, 2009 proclamation of LGBT Pride Month, saying:

Hence, sodomites, who who are in large part responsible for the introduction and spread of the HIV/AIDS epidemic are praised for responding to this plague in an attempt to avoid annihilation (by the way, I know you don’t have to engage in sodomy to get HIV, but that doesn’t change the facts… see the book, And the Band Played On for an honest look at this issue). This is revisionism at its worst.

The President goes on to celebrate the fact that this abomination (Lev 18:22) worthy of the death penalty (Lev 20:13) is now being celebrated in the open. He writes, “Due in no small part to the determination and dedication of the LGBT rights movement, more LGBT Americans are living their lives openly today than ever before.” This is a clear sign of the devolution of culture. As Paul writes in Romans, “Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.” (Rom 1:32 ESV)

Although Baucham writes “this abomination (Lev 18:22) worthy of the death penalty” and follows it with his view of Romans 1, he does not directly call for the death penalty now. However, he does believe that the authority of civil government comes from God and that the church should inform civil leaders of biblical law. Baucham, like many Reconstructionists, believes that Ron Paul has a biblical view of jurisdiction. In his statement, Baucham says that Paul supports state’s rights and believes in limiting Federal power.

Additional information: In this sermon, Baucham refers again to the Leviticus and Romans passages which he interprets as calls for the death penalty. At the same time, he says gays should not be bashed. The inconsistency is not addressed.