‘Project Jeremiah’ leader endorses Santorum for POTUS

Sioux City pastor was instrumental in ouster of three Iowa Supreme Court Justices one year ago

 

By Bob Eschliman

 

      A little more than a year ago, the Rev. Cary K. Gordon became famous — or infamous, depending upon your political leanings — for taking on a leadership role in the ouster of three Iowa Supreme Court justices.

      Gordon, president of PeaceMakers Institute and pastor of Sioux City’s Cornerstone World Outreach received national attention last year for “Project Jeremiah,” a statewide campaign involving a controversial letter he sent to over 1,000 Iowa churches. It called for the removal of the three Iowa State Supreme Court Justices for their abuse of judicial authority in imposing same-sex marriage upon Iowans, while promising pro-bono legal defense for any Iowa church harassed by the I.R.S. for exercising their rights to free speech in the pulpit.

      The Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State in Washington, D.C., called Gordon’s actions one of the most outrageous attempts to politicize a church that he has ever seen.

      Now, Gordon’s “outrageousness” has extended to presidential politics. Today, he made his choice for president known through an online video, as well as a text message that will be delivered to nearly 800,000 cell phones of registered Iowa voters and residents of Iowa’s Fifth Congressional District, where he lives.

      His choice: Former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum.

      “He’s committed to rescuing this nation from economic disaster,” he said. “Rick Santorum is committed to family values, and it shows in his own family.”

      Gordon said the public endorsement of a presidential candidate is new territory.

      “It’s not something I’ve ever done before, not publically,” he said. “It’s a real privilege to be an Iowan, and it’s a role I take very seriously. I have spent hours … vetting everyone that is running for the presidency right now.”

      He described the vetting process as “at times inspiring, sometimes it’s been fun, but a lot of times it’s been frustrating and difficult.”

      Gordon said many leaders are afraid to make public endorsements because it is somehow implied that an endorsement is approval of a candidate’s past failures. He said that’s both unfair and unrealistic, and generally doesn’t ring true.

      “That attitude, that if you endorse someone you’re approving of all the things they’ve done wrong, I think that’s the biggest reason why pastors like myself refuse to participate in the process in a public way,” he said. “Ironically, the lack of public participation by ministers, I believe, is at the root of everything that is wrong with our country.”

      Gordon said it’s going to take “an imperfect human with God’s help and God’s blessing” to turn the country’s misfortunes around. He said he was looking for a candidate who was both “humble and credible, someone I can trust, and someone who has generally good ideas.”

      In his endorsement video, expected to pop-up on I-Phones, Droids and other such “smart phones” this weekend, Gordon emphatically rejects frontrunners Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, while urging Iowans to support Santorum – in part because Santorum has declared he would include fellow GOP Presidential contender, U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, at the top of his administrative team.

      “I have thoroughly vetted every candidate that is currently running for president, and I have come to a conclusion that there are only two people currently in this race that have faithfully championed the legitimate solutions necessary to get this country back on course,” Gordon said, adding, with only a month until the Iowa Caucus, “it is abundantly necessary that the conservative community coalesce behind only one of … two great candidates,” Santorum and Bachmann. Santorum’s recent declaration of his aim to make Bachmann a vital part of a Santorum administration made Gordon’s decision much easier, he said. “I want them both in the White House!”

      He said Santorum and Bachmann’s swift July responses to the Iowa Family Leader’s Marriage Vow – a sweeping political pledge document that addresses issues ranging from adultery and marital fidelity, homosexual unions and gay health issues, U.S. monogamy and Islamist polygamy, fatherless children and U.S. military policy – has been extremely important to his decision. Gordon noted that only Santorum, Bachmann and Texas Gov. Rick Perry have signed the document, while frontrunner Gingrich, the former U.S. House Speaker, has rejected both the Iowa vow and the National Organization for Marriage pledge against same-sex unions.

      Santorum and Bachmann, Gordon said, have both pledged to reinstate the military’s longstanding “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy against open homosexuality, reversed earlier this year by President Obama.

      “Rick and Michele would make a great GOP match, and would defend Judeo-Christian monogamy, while I think it’s increasingly clear Gingrich simply cannot be trusted with the institution of marriage in any sense,” he said. “I think the 2010 Esquire interview with Newt’s second ex-wife and former mistress was very troubling.”

      Gordon also praised Santorum for championing a Personhood Amendment to the Constitution, something the pastor said was necessary if Americans wished to “stop the barbaric evil of abortion once and for all.” He added, “Rick Santorum is committed to rescuing this nation from economic disaster, and that’s good news for everyone concerned about their families.”

      He also acknowledged his endorsement comes with consequences.

      “Someone will inevitably disagree with the decision I have made. And I know any leader who decides to stick their neck out and make a public endorsement is suddenly going to face criticism of their own,” he said. “I’m prepared for that, because I think our country is in a lot of trouble.”

      Gordon said Iowans, like most Americans, are fearful of what another four years of Barack Obama in office would do to the country. But, he is hopeful Americans do not let their fear rule how they will vote in the GOP presidential nomination process.

      “We don’t have to be afraid,” he said. “I hope that voters won’t be driven by fear to just go by polling data and grab someone we can’t really trust and throw them at the helm of this government. I posit to you that isn’t going to save America.”

 

      The full-length version of Gordon’s interview is available for viewing here.

Stewart Park Squatters Demand Wellmark Change It’s Business Model

The complete and utter ignorance of the protesters taking part in Occupy Des Moines never ceases to amaze me. We have seen the protesters from Occupy Des Moines take a foolhardy and provocative stance that led to the arrest of more than 30 of the protesters. We have seen many of the so-called protesters continue to insist beyond any and all rational reasoning that the 1st Amendment allows their little squatters camp to violate the law. But the latest out of the Stewart’s Park Squatters Camp really takes the cake.

According to this story in the Des Moines Register, about a dozen of the squatters tore themselves away from their dingy little tents to march on one of Iowa’s largest and most respected employers. In their sights this time was Wellmark Blue Cross Blue Shield. The dirty dozen delivered their brazen demand that Wellmark “put people before profit” by lowering their premiums.

It is absolutely astounding that the occupiers have the nerve to tell a successful and well respected company like Wellmark how to run its business. It is quite evident that the group has absolutely no knowledge as to how a business, such as Wellmark, operates. Instead they make an emotional demand that Wellmark abandon a business model that has worked successfully for a great many years just because the occupiers don’t think it is fair.

I have a proposal for the dirty dozen that marched on Wellmark. If you don’t like how Wellmark operates, change to a different company. If that doesn’t appeal to you, start your own insurance company. Organize it as a non-profit so that you can “put people before profit.” Compete with Wellmark and the other insurance companies doing business in Iowa. The quickest and surest way to affect change is through competition. If you can offer equal or better coverage than Wellmark for less they will be forced to change how they do business.

With that said, I don’t see it happening. We have now had several weeks to observe the group. One conclusion that has been easy to come to is that they are lazy. They don’t want to do the work, they want someone else to do it for them while they sit back and reap the rewards. I know this is harsh, but the story about their Wellmark march demonstrates this conclusion very clearly.

New Feature on Iowa Defense Alliance

With the race for the Republican Presidential nomination heating up, I have come to realize that finding news and commentary can sometimes be difficult and time consuming. There are a great many voters out there that simply do not have the time needed to conduct this search in order to vet the candidates. In attempt to help our readers become more knowledgeable and informed about the Republican Presidential candidates Iowa Defense Alliance has launched a new feature to the blog.

If you will avert your eyes to the right hand side of the page you will see a heading titled Pages. Underneath this header you will see, in alphabetical order,  a list of eight Republican Presidential candidates. To find the information and commentary that we have gathered you must simply click on the desired candidate’s name which will take you to a page with numerous links on it. These links will then take you to a multitude of news and commentary articles about the candidate you have chosen. Naturally we cannot and will not be able to catch all the stories and opinions out there, so if you have an article you would like us to link to simply post it in the comment section below or you can send it to me at abregarjr@hotmail.com.

Common Sense: Happy Veterans Day Courtesy of the US Air Force

  Today is the 236th birthday of the United States Marine Corps (Semper Fidelis, with a Bravo Zulu and Charlie Mike in there for good measure). Tomorrow will be Veterans Day.

Like most veterans, I will gather with my comrades tomorrow for special events in honor of those among us who, at some point in their life, made out a check to “The People of The United States of America” for an amount “up to and including my life.” But, in the back of my mind, I’m going to be thinking about how my government has once again reneged on its promise to those who put on the uniform and served.

If you haven’t heard, I can’t say I’m entirely surprised, but Tuesday, the U.S. Air Force released a report capping a year-long investigation of how the Dover Air Force Base mortuary mishandled the remains of service members. According to a statement from the Air Force, the practice of cremating the remains and dumping the ashes in a Virginia landfill had been going on for years.

The details of the situation at Dover AFB were outlined Tuesday in a report by The Washington Post, as well.

The mission at Air Force Mortuary Affairs Operations is to “provide reverence, dignity, honor and respect to the fallen and care, service and support to their families.” While it is an Air Force operation, it is staffed by members of all branches of the military, as well as National Guard, Reserve and civilian staff.

And, since the initiation of joint hostilities in bothIraqandAfghanistan, AFMAO’s mission has become increasingly more difficult. Since 2003, it has prepared more than 6,300 fallen military members for return to their loved ones.

AFMAO operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and routinely deals with the horrific trauma of war. That much I get and respect. What I don’t understand, however, is how this has been candy-coated and, more or less, swept under the rug by the military.

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton A. Schwartz said that while the situation was certainly bad, no one intentionally did anything wrong. Instead, he blamed “gross mismanagement” for the way service members’ remains were mishandled:

“Though the findings concluded remains of our fallen were handled with reverence, dignity, honor and respect, the investigations resulted in a determination that three senior supervisors’ actions and inactions, though not willful, constituted ‘gross mismanagement’ for failing to respond appropriately to clear indications that procedures were inadequate to prevent loss of accountability of disassociated remains (referred to as portions) at the Dover Port Mortuary.

“Gross mismanagement is an action or inaction that is blatant and creates a substantial risk or significant adverse impact on the agency’s ability to accomplish its mission. This did not constitute a finding that AFMAO was mismanaged as a general matter, but was limited to the leadership’s failure to respond appropriately to specific accountability issues related to portions.”

    I don’t know about you, but where I come from, that’s some Major League butt-covering. Perhaps I’m just a little too sensitive, being a veteran myself, but U.S. Special Counsel Carolyn Lerner, who investigates complaints like these, agrees.

She said that “while the Air Force has made many changes… including requiring family permission prior to significantly altering remains and putting in place extensive procedures to improve the handling and accountability of remains, it has not taken sufficient disciplinary action against the officials responsible for wrongdoing.” She also noted “the Air Force delayed notifying the families involved until publication of the OSC report was imminent.”

As reported in the WaPo article, Gari-Lynn Smith, the wife of one service member whose remains were dumped in the landfill after his 2006 death inIraq, was appalled and disgusted by the way the Air Force acted. The article stated she did not learn about the mishandling of her husband’s remains until this spring, just before the OSC report was released (in May).

“My only peace of mind in losing my husband was that he was taken toDoverand that he was handled with dignity, love, respect and honor,” Smith said. “That was completely shattered for me when I was told that he was thrown in the trash.”

She said she only learned in April that part of her husband’s remains had been dumped in the landfill in a letter from an AFMAO official. The letter misidentified her husband, a 16-year Army veteran who volunteered for hazardous duty defusing roadside bombs, with the wrong first name.

So much for dignity, honor, and respect, I guess.

Lerner is currently investigating claims the Air Force retaliated against three staff members who were acting as whistleblowers — staff members who clearly didn’t feel AFMAO was handling fallen service members’ remains with “reverence, dignity, honor and respect.” So, let’s look at what Gen. Schwartz might have meant by that.

In a separate WaPo article, James Parsons Sr., an embalmer at AFMAO, blew the whistle when he was instructed to saw an arm off the body of a Marine who had been killed by an IED inAfghanistan in February of this year. Parsons, himself and Army veteran, refused to follow the order and was later the target of retribution — including an attempt to get him fired — over the matter.

“What I’m thinking is: ‘This is totally wrong’… I’d consider it to be mutilation, especially if that’s my son,” he said. “It’s immoral… It’s disrespectful, so disrespectful. This guy laid down his life for his country, and then we go and treat him like he’s a piece of meat. ‘I can do whatever I want with him.’ It’s just wrong.”

The WaPo article says the officer responsible for the Marine’s arm being removed was demoted and reassigned elsewhere at Dover AFB, away from AFMAO. But the officers overseeing the mortuary operation only received reprimands and remain in command, according to Lerner’s report.

Her report to President Barack Obama also enumerated two instances in which service members’ body parts were lost while being handled by AFMAO personnel. She also reported five instances in which the remains of five stillborn military dependents were mishandled at Dover AFB.

The WaPo also obtained Air Force documents that identified the landfill used for disposing the remains, which was located in King George County, Va. Officials with Waste Management, the company that operates the landfill, said they were not informed of the origin of the ashes, nor was it made aware of the process AFMAO was implementing.

So, where do you suppose the American Legion, the largest veterans’ service organization in the United States, weighs in on this matter? The answer, you would think, is pretty obvious: they’re outraged, right? Well, if they are, the National Command is strangely silent on the matter.

But, not everyone is staying mum about it. Richard L. DeNoyer, National Commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, found a way to express his outrage.

“The VFW demands that the Departments of Defense and the Air Force get to the bottom of this, to hold accountable those directly responsible, and to ensure necessary controls are in-place and followed to never permit such disrespectful incidents to ever occur again,” he said. “What happened at Dover AFB exceeds on many levels the nationwide anger that resulted from reports of mistreated wounded at the formerWalterReedArmyMedicalCenterin 2007 and reports of lost or misplaced graves atArlingtonNationalCemeteryin 2009. You only get one chance to return our fallen warriors to their families with all the dignity and respect they deserve from a grateful nation — and that mortuary affairs unit failed.”

I don’t think “failed” even begins to cover it, but I don’t think words can completely describe this nightmare. I’ve been trying to find a word that would describe the rage and anger I’m feeling as a veteran for two days now.

I simply can’t.

The closest I can come to it are a couple of old military phrases, neither of which are appropriate for polite conversation. The first one starts with “cluster” and the other has been shortened over the years to “snafu.”

I’ll let those of you who are good at Googling figure out the rest.

But, I end each and every newspaper column I write with the following statement, so I’d like to end on a positive note by repeating it here. I make no claims of ownership — I picked it up years ago — but it accurately represents my feelings about veterans. Feel free to use it whenever you like:

 

    If you’re reading this, thank a teacher. If you’re reading this in English, thank a soldier, sailor, airman or Marine.

Occupy DSM: Intentionally Confrontational?

David Goodner, one of the Occupy Des Moines protesters arrested last Sunday who seems to be intent on a repeat performance.

There is a new twist in the continuing saga of the Occupy DSM protests today. This morning the organizers of the Occupy DSM protests had their application to renew their permit to stay in the park they have been occupying has been denied. According to the Iowa Department of Administrative Services the permit was denied because the state has had the practice of limiting overnight stays to just three nights. This means that if the protesters ignore the 11 P.M. curfew they will once again be subject to arrest as well as criminal charges.

The uproar that has resulted from this decision has been entirely predictable. One of the chief agitators at the moment is David Goodner from Iowa Citizen’s for Community Improvement. This group has been well documented as a confrontational organization that will resort to disruption and chaos in an attempt to push their point of view. It was this group that heckled Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney during the Iowa State Fair in August. According to the Des Moines Register Mr. Goodner is attempting to claim that because the State denied the renewal of the permit that the State is suppressing their freedom of speech.

I cannot stress this strong enough. The State of Iowa is not attempting to limit the protesters ability to protest. The State of Iowa is not attempting to limit the protesters 1st Amendment rights. There is, however, someone that is working to limit the protesters right to protest, the protesters themselves. That’s right; the only one that is working to limit their ability to protest is the protesters themselves. They have rigidly stood by their demands to protest in that particular park. It seems to be that the protesters themselves feel that they are above the law. They continuously espouse the belief that they have a right to violate the curfew law governing that park because they want to protest there. By continuing to be wavering in this demand the biggest hindrance to their ability protest is themselves.

I find it simply astonishing that a group that has supposedly assembled to protest and attempt to affect change has acted so irrationally. This begs the question, if their message is so important that they have to be able to protest around the clock, why in the world are they so rigid in their protests location? And while I do not have an answer to this question, I can develop a few assumptions. Perhaps the some of the protesters are simply there to create a confrontation. Perhaps someone like David Goodner wants to try to get arrested in an attempt to become seen as a “leader” in this movement. Or it could be that the protesters are so blinded by their hatred for Governor Branstad that they are forcing a potential confrontation in an effort to embarrass him. Then again they could simply not realize that they do have options.

I have learned that the Des Moines Mayor Frank Cownie has extended an invitation to the Occupy DSM protesters to utilize a city park to the east of the State Capital with a seven day permit. Personally I don’t think that these protesters will accept the invitation. They have the ability to protest at the State Capital, just not in the location that they want. Furthermore, there will be no line of sight between them and the State Capital officially neutering their protest. Additionally, as I said before, I believe that a number of the protesters are intent on provoking a confrontation with the Iowa State Patrol. No, I think that the use of the city park will be refused and that the end result will be the arrest of two to three dozen protesters. I could be wrong of course. We will find out at 11 P.M.

Occupy DSM Arrests: Rhetoric vs. Reality

As I am sure you are by now aware, thirty-two protesters were arrested last night at the Occupy Iowa protest at the Iowa State Capital. Now, in an attempt to deflect criticism, participants and supporters of the rally are attempting to claim victimhood. They are attempting to control the dialog to make it appear as if they had been wronged by a bullish government intent on silencing their voice. Fortunately there are those of us that are rational enough to see what truly happened are and are willing to shed light on the subject.

Last night shortly after the events unfolded The Des Moines Register’s Regina Zilbermints reported that after repeated warnings to vacate the park by 11P.M the Iowa State Patrol began arresting the assembled protesters. According to Zilbermints several of the protesters intentionally resisted arrest by linking arms and sitting down; thus forcing the Troopers to carry many of the protesters to the awaiting vehicles.

In the hours since the chaotic turn of events occurred the protesters and their supporters have come up with all sorts of excuses for what happened last night. Some, such as the Marion County Iowa Democrats, have attempted to claim that the protesters did not know that the park was closed after 11 P.M. I have since learned that this is an entirely fictitious statement based upon this post that I found on the Des Moines Registers Facebook page. Just before 6 P.M. the protesters commented that they expected the Iowa State Patrol to kick them out at 11 P.M. when the park closes.

Facebook Screenshot

In spite of the rhetoric that we are hearing, no one’s Constitutional rights were violated last night. The protesters that were arrested were provided ample time to, five hours to be exact, to relocate their protest to another spot. The thirty-two protesters that were arrested could have simply done as their fellow protesters did and move across the street. Instead they intentionally disregarded a lawful order from multiple Iowa State Patrol officers in accordance with the law. And due to their arrogance they were arrested. I hope that they will come to understand the consequences of their actions, but somehow I doubt that they will.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 694 other followers