Why President Obama Will Lose in a Landslide

Comments Off

Wayne Allan Rootis a former Libertarian Vice-Presidential nominee and a Las Vegas oddsmaker. Root states up front that he won’t vote for either Obama or Romney. Being a Libertarian, his first choice is Ron Paul, but since Paul is not running as a third-party candidate, Root’s going to vote for Libertarian Presidential candidate Gary Johnson. Even so, Root thinks Romney will win in a landslide.

He presents some interesting historical facts that he says point to “a resounding Romney victory.” In 1980, Root points out, “Reagan was losing by 9 points to Carter. Romney is right now running even in polls.” Root offers the following on popular voting blocks to back up his landslide claim:

1. Black voters. Obama has nowhere to go but down among this group. His endorsement of gay marriage has alienated many black church-going Christians. He may get 88% of their vote instead of the 96% he got in 2008. This is not good news for Obama.

2. Hispanic voters. Obama has nowhere to go but down among this group. If Romney picks Rubio as his VP running-mate the GOP may pick up an extra 10% to 15% of Hispanic voters (plus lock down Florida). This is not good news for Obama. [Editor's Note: Obama’s latest immigration ploy could affect the Hispanic vote. How Romney responds will make a difference.]

3. Jewish voters. Obama has been weak in his support of Israel. Many Jewish voters and big donors are angry and disappointed. I predict Obama’s Jewish support drops from 78% in 2008 to the low 60s. This is not good news for Obama.

4. Youth voters. Obama’s biggest and most enthusiastic believers from 4 years ago have graduated into a job market from hell. Young people are disillusioned, frightened, and broke — a bad combination. The enthusiasm is long gone. Turnout will be much lower among young voters, as will actual voting percentages. This not good news for Obama.

5. Catholic voters. Obama won a majority of Catholics in 2008. That won’t happen again. Out of desperation to please women, Obama went to war with the Catholic Church over contraception. Now he is being sued by the Catholic Church. Majority lost. This is not good news for Obama.

6. Small Business owners. Because I ran for Vice President last time around, and I’m a small businessman myself, I know literally thousands of small business owners. At least 40% of them in my circle of friends, fans and supporters voted for Obama 4 years ago to “give someone different a chance.” I warned them that he would pursue a war on capitalism and demonize anyone who owned a business…that he’d support unions over the private sector in a big way…that he’d overwhelm the economy with spending and debt. My friends didn’t listen. Four years later, I can’t find one person in my circle of small business owner friends voting for Obama. Not one. This is not good news for Obama.

7. Blue collar working class whites. Do I need to say a thing? White working class voters are about as happy with Obama as Boston Red Sox fans feel about the New York Yankees. This is not good news for Obama.

8. Suburban moms. The issue isn’t contraception; it’s having a job to pay for contraception. Obama’s economy frightens these moms. They are worried about putting food on the table. They fear for their children’s future. This is not good news for Obama.

9. Military Veterans. McCain won this group by 10 points. Romney is winning by 24 points. The more our military vets got to see of Obama, the more they disliked him. This is not good news for Obama.

Add it up. Is there one major group where Obama has gained since 2008? Will anyone in America wake up on election-day saying “I didn’t vote for Obama 4 years ago, but he’s done such a fantastic job. I can’t wait to vote for him today”? Does anyone feel that a vote for Obama makes their job more secure?

Forget the polls. My gut instincts as a Vegas oddsmaker and common sense small businessman tell me this will be a historic landslide and a world-class repudiation of Obama’s radical and risky socialist agenda. It’s Reagan-Carter all over again.

But I’ll give Obama credit for one thing — he is living proof that familiarity breeds contempt.

Romney Admits He Won’t End ObamaCare

Comments Off

Don’t get me wrong, I’d rather deal with Romney and get Obama out of office as soon as possible, but don’t let Romney fool you folks……….

At the end of this video Romney admits he will keep large parts of Obamacare.

Mitt Romney Touted the Individual Mandate as an Example for the Nation as Recently as 2009

Comments Off

Mitt Romney had his own Romneycare in Massachusetts and was the model for Obamacare….do you really think Romney will repeal Obamacare?

You may recall from the 20 GOP presidential debates this season that front-runner Mitt Romney is fond of talking abouthis signature Romneycare initiative in Massachusetts with formulations such as this:

I’ve made it very clear [....] this is something that was crafted for Massachusetts. It would be wrong to adopt this as a nation.

You may also recall, through our coverage here at Reason, that this claim is a provable lie. The latest evidence for which is this July 2009 Romney op-ed in USA Today that’s been making the rounds. Headline (emphasis mine): “Mr. President, what’s the rush? Obama could learn a thing or two about health care reform from Massachusetts. One, time is not the enemy. Two, neither are the Republicans.”

Relevant section, with my bolding:

For health care reform to succeed in Washington, the president must finally do what he promised during the campaign: Work with Republicans as well as Democrats.

Massachusetts also proved that you don’t need government insurance. Our citizens purchase private, free-market medical insurance. There is no “public option.” With more than 1,300 health insurance companies, a federal government insurance company isn’t necessary. It would inevitably lead to massive taxpayer subsidies, to lobbyist-inspired coverage mandates and to the liberals’ dream: a European-style single-payer system. To find common ground with skeptical Republicans and conservative Democrats, the president will have to jettison left-wing ideology for practicality and dump the public option.

Our experience also demonstrates that getting every citizen insured doesn’t have to break the bank. First, we established incentives for those who were uninsured to buy insurance. Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages “free riders” to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others. This doesn’t cost the government a single dollar. Second, we helped pay for our new program by ending an old one — something government should do more often. The federal government sends an estimated $42 billion to hospitals that care for the poor: Use those funds instead to help the poor buy private insurance, as we did.

Read more

Media Bias At It’s Peak

Comments Off

I use the Drudge report to catch headlines of what’s going on around the world. For years, Matt Drudge has been pretty much a poster of stories and he let them speak for themselves. Not this year, it’s pretty obvious where his head is…up the rear of establishment Republicans and Mitt Romney. I unabashedly say that I favor Newt Gingrich so far. Why? Because all this crap being thrown at him is just that…crap. He IS the most conservative of the candidates there, he has more of a chance to beat Obama than the next choice, Rick Santorum. Ron Paul, while an excellent constitutionalist, takes his libertarian side a little to far to isolationism. The founders were correct in calling for congress to approve wars, and the President cannot…we have to remember that. Ron’s isolationalist ideals won’t play well with what’s happening in the world right now. A spade is a spade…Iran cannot make a nuke, Palestine cannot run Israel off, and Iraq is already folding after all that….

Ok, back to why I made this post. Matt Drudge has stopped being an impartial poster of headlines. He’s still posting them, but they have taken a partisan lean. Problem is, he’s quoting errant messages, manipulated videos and playing into the hands of the elitists. Rush Limbaugh today answered Newts conservative credentials, as well as Newt is endorsed by Michael Reagan, and even Nancy Reagan handed the torch to Newt. Drudge now joins the ranks of MSNBC and the networks by using a partisan slant and worst of all, baited stories.  

Not only did Limbaugh strike back, so did a lot of conservatives in…get this…the New York Times:

Conservatives Criticize Drudge for Anti-Gingrich Assault

By MICHAEL D. SHEAR

Furious conservatives have taken to blogs and Twitter on Thursday to vent their ire against what they allege is a conspiratorial dumping of twisted and manipulated negative attacks on Newt Gingrich.

The target of their fury: The Drudge Report.

For the last 48 hours, the conservative Web site led by Matt Drudge has become a virtual campaign arm for Mitt Romney, featuring huge, screaming headlines about Mr. Gingrich and his past.

That prompted conservatives who support Mr. Gingrich to accuse Mr. Drudge of selling out to the Republican establishment — many of whom have come to Mr. Romney’s aid as the battle with Mr. Gingrich has heated up.

Ana Beavenhouser, whose Twitter profile says that she is “so right wing, my symbol is not the elephant … it is the WOOLY MAMMOTH!!” posted on Twitter:

tweet avatar

@anabeavenhouser ana beavenhouser

Where the hell was all this effort into “exposing” a candidate when #obama was running? #Drudgeis officially irrelevant now!

Across the Internet, conservatives questioned whether Mr. Drudge had become as much the enemy as the liberal media.

tweet avatar

@verigatari verigatari

Is this #Drudge report, or MSNBC? Matt Drudge is no better than Chris Matthews, distorting the facts! #tcot#withNewt

And many suggested that a new media elite — joined by the once-conservative Mr. Drudge — had banded together to keep Mr. Gingrich from becoming the Republican Party‘s presidential nominee.

tweet avatar

@10thAmendment Elizabeth

@olretiree it’s not the voters creating a division it’s not teaparty , it’s #GOP#RNC#Drudge#Coulter#FNC#MSN co-ordinated attacks#tcot

The Drudge Report was borne out of the Monica Lewinsky scandal and for years has been seen as a reliable place to find some of the most hard-core attacks on Democrats and liberals. The site is one of the most heavily trafficked on the Internet, especially among conservatives.

But in recent days, Mr. Drudge has used his valuable digital real estate for a frontal assault on Mr. Gingrich’s candidacy. For hours on Thursday, the site led with the headline: “INSIDER: GINGRICH REPEATEDLY INSULTED REAGAN.”

Another headline that was up for hours read: “NEWT 1988: ‘If Bush runs as continuation of Reaganism he will lose’…”

That headline linked to a carefully-cropped video that purported to show Mr. Gingrich saying that George H. W. Bush should run against the record of Ronald Reagan.

But as conservative supporters of Mr. Gingrich quickly pointed out, the complete video makes it clear that Mr. Gingrich was not criticizing Mr. Reagan’s record, but was rather suggesting that Mr. Bush — like any politician — should look to the future, not the past.

“Cherry-picked quotes, biased headlines and hyperlinks to Newt-hating op-eds in order to patch together an ugly and distorted mosaic of the former House speaker is not journalism,” Matt Barber, a blogger, wrote in a post titled “The Drudge Distort.” He continued, “It’s mercenary-style political prostitution.”

Another blog post declared Thursday to be “Bloody Thursday the Day the Drudge Report Sold Out.”

The writer said, “I have read the Drudge Report daily ever since he broke the Lewinsky story. I have NEVER seen him attack anyone with the volume of coverage and with the venom that he has attacked this Gingrich fellow.”

The blog post concluded, “On this Thursday, this quite bloody Thursday, I can only say, et tu Matt.”

By Thursday evening, Mr. Drudge’s home page again featured a picture of a glum-looking President Obama atop headlines about a worsening situation in Syria and Egypt. But the main headline was still anti-Newt: “NOW DOLE DROPS STINK ON NEWT.”

And many of the headlines on the page continued to question Mr. Gingrich’s credentials as a conservative. “DeLay: Newt ‘not really a conservative’…” said one. “NEWT FLASHBACK 1983: REAGAN RESPONSIBLE FOR NATIONAL ‘DECAY’…” read another.

Rush Limbaugh, on his radio show on Thursday, also took note of the headlines, calling it a “coordinated” effort to smear Mr. Gingrich.

“Now, when I saw all it is stuff — and obviously it’s a coordinated document dump here, opposition research dump. It’s obviously coordinated,” said Mr. Limbaugh, who has not been a fan of Mr. Romney’s in the past.

Whether the conservative backlash against Mr. Drudge has any long-term effect on the Web site is unclear. But at least in the short term, Mr. Drudge’s harsh critique of Mr. Gingrich has stirred up conservatives.

While Rush doesn’t really support Newt on his radio show, (he has vowed not to endorse anyone) he points out during his ramblings that Newt didn’t do quite what’s been told about him. Here is a transcript from Rush’s show:

RUSH: How long’s it gonna be, folks, before we start seeing billboards all over, Florida, other upcoming primary states with Rick Perry on ‘em saying, “Miss me yet?” How long’s that gonna be? You remember when they had the George Bush billboards, “Miss me yet?” a couple months into the regime?
Anyway, great to have you here, folks, already Thursday, fastest week in the media. Goes even faster when one of the days you spend 12 hours, 10 hours, whatever it was, in an airplane, like I did? Great to have you here, as always, it really is a thrill and a delight. Telephone number if you want to be on the program today, 800-282-2882, and the e-mail address, ElRushbo@eibnet.com.

Boy, this Newt stuff. Did you know any of this Newt stuff, Snerdley? Let’s go through the list. By the way, you should know, there’s a blog in the Washington Post. It’s called The Plum Line and it’s written by a guy named Greg Sargent, and I think he used to be at Editor and Publisher back when it was in business. He was one of the guys there when it went out of business. Very, very left-leaning. He’s got a post that includes this. “The New York Times reports today — based on unclear sourcing — that Mitt Romney has endorsed a strategy of raising doubts about Newt Gingrich’s ‘emotional stability.'” And then there are others that are raising questions here about Newt and his mendacity, his forthrightness.

It is incredible. Yeah, yeah. Well, during the CNN debate with John King, he said that he had all kinds of friends that could vouch for the fact that he had never told his wife he wanted an open marriage. And so yesterday Newt in the campaign said, (paraphrasing) “Nope, nope, there aren’t any friends. It’s just my two daughters. What I said in the debate, that wasn’t true.” But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Here’s the front page of Drudge. Let’s give you the headlines.

Newt flashback, 1983: “Reagan Responsible for National Decay.” This is Newt saying these things.

Newt 1986: “The Reagan Administration Has Failed, Is Failing.”

Newt, 1988: “If Bush Runs as a Continuation of Reaganism, He Will Lose.” Now, of course, Bush ran as a continuation of Reaganism, and he won, and he soundly defeated the loser, Michael Dukakis.

Then here’s the story on the debate claim. “During last Thursday’s debate, when CNN moderator John King asked about Marianne Gingrich’s interview on ABC accusing Newt Gingrich of having requested an ‘open marriage,’ part of Gingrich’s crowd-pleasing answer was this charge: ‘Let me be quite clear. The story is false. Every personal friend I have who knew us in that period said the story was false. We offered several of them to ABC to prove it was false. They weren’t interested because they would like to attack any Republican.’

“Now, last night, King reported on his show CNN’s John King, USA that Gingrich had spoken inaccurately when he said that friends had been offered to ABC to rebut the story. ‘Well, tonight, after persistent questioning by our staff, the Gingrich campaign concedes now Speaker Gingrich was wrong both in his debate answer and in our interview yesterday,’ King said. ‘Gingrich spokesman R.C. Hammond says the only people the campaign offered to ABC were the Speaker’s two daughters from his first marriage.'” So he’s out there, and he told John King during the debate, this is one of the answers that got a standing O. That he’d offered ABC a whole bunch of friends of his to rebut this point that he never said to his wife he wanted an open marriage. That turns out not to be true.

Then there is YouTube video in 1988: “Bush Won’t Win if He Runs to Continue Reaganism.” Of course, Bush 41 won in a landslide in 1988 and it was largely because the American people wanted four more years of Reagan. There are other examples of this profound criticism of Reagan. Drudge’s lead headline is, “Insider: Gingrich Repeatedly Insulted Reagan.” Now, when I saw all of this stuff — and obviously it’s a coordinated document dump here, opposition research dump. It’s obviously coordinated. And this stuff, by the way, that’s on Greg Sargent’s blog, Plum Line, that’s the thinly sourced stuff in the New York Times about Newt being emotionally unstable and Romney putting that out, that’s why Romney is not liked by the Republicans that don’t like him. It’s that kind of stuff that his campaign puts out.

If you want to know, why do these people hate Romney so much? In 2008, you recall, Huckabee and McCain hated Romney. Now they both love Romney, but back then they hated Romney. It’s because of stuff like this. He’s doing stuff like this in ads before they had any money to run their own ads. And, I’ll tell you what, the way this hit me, I told you people this before. I first heard of Newt Gingrich when he was perhaps the premiere defender of Ronald Reagan. This was in the early 1980s of course, Reagan assumed office in 1981. I was working in Kansas City. Between 1979 and 1983 I was working for the Kansas City Royals. In 1983 I left the Royals and corporate America and went back to radio. I was gonna give it one more shot because that was my passion, it’s what I loved and it’s what I did best. And I learned that corporate structures were not for me.

But even during those last two years, of course, I’m in my private time which there wasn’t a lot of when you work for a professional baseball team, 18-hour days, during home stands and so forth. But, nevertheless, I was as immersed in politics then as I am now. What’s funny is nobody at the Royals knew it because nobody ever talked about it. All you did was talk baseball there. If you talked about anything other than what was in the sports page, there was something wrong with you. So nobody I worked with had any idea that I had any interest whatsoever or knowledge whatsoever in politics. But I’m watching this stuff and what happened was, the moment Reagan’s inaugurated, the Democrats, the media, it was as vicious an assault on a human being, on a Republican, as there is today.

Now, those of you who were not paying attention back then — or who were too young to pay attention — don’t doubt me, it was vicious. And Reagan did not have a media on his side. It was the three networks and CNN and the newspapers. There was no talk radio. There were no blogs, of course. There wasn’t the Internet. There was no alternative media. Reagan had National Review. That was his lone ally in the media, William Buckley’s National Review. That was it. And early on in the Reagan years, does the name David Stockman ring a bell? David Stockman, the first budget director for Reagan, within the first year goes rogue and says Reaganomics won’t work, can’t work, it was bad.

It was a total back stab. That’s where the name “trickle down” actually got created I think, and became standard vernacular in the popular lexicon. That, and supply-side. And I remember the stories about Reagan taking Stockman to the woodshed. That’s a quote from the story. That’s how it was described, to get his mind right. But that unleashed a torrent from Tip O’Neill, from every Democrat, I mean all these people. Reagan lied, Bush was right, it is voodoo economics, oh, this is horrible. We were in a great recession at the time here. The Democrats loved what Stockman did, and the guy who self-appointed himself to stop all this was Newt. And that’s where I first heard of him.

Newt Gingrich and Bob Walker and a couple of others that were members of what was called the Conservative Opportunity Society, I don’t know that it had been named as such yet, but it was a bunch of young, relatively new members of the House on the Republican side who were conservatives. They had special orders every night. Once the House had finished its official business, as long as somebody shows up on the floor of the House to speak, the cameras on C-SPAN stay on. It didn’t matter that nobody else was in the House chamber. They stayed on until the last person left the floor. And Newt and his guys were in there five hours a night. They were rotating, each of them would speak for an hour. They would yield to each other. They would interrupt themselves for questions and so forth. But the cameras only were focused on the well. You never knew that there was no audience there, except there was never any applause. You never knew that the House chamber was empty, unless you knew what the special orders were.

And this went on for years. And it’s where I heard of Newt Gingrich. And Newt had appointed himself the personal defender of Ronald Reagan and had appointed himself the singular person with his buddies to counter all of what he thought were the lies of the day being spouted by the media and the Democrats. Then I leave the Royals and I get back into radio. And I decide that I want to get this guy Gingrich on the air to have a chat with, and it was difficult. Couldn’t do it. The requests that Gingrich were getting were overwhelming; he wasn’t really interested in doing a lot of them. He didn’t really have a whole lot of time.

The station I was working on was owned by the Mormon church, Bonneville Broadcasting. It turned out that somebody inside Bonneville Broadcasting unearthed a contact that was able to get to Newt, and I got an interview with him for about 20 or 25 minutes. I don’t remember anything about the interview. These are just little details here to spice up the story. But this went on for years. These special orders went on for years, and it wasn’t just the defense of Reagan. Newt Gingrich was ripping the Speaker of the House at the time, Tip O’Neill; and when Tip left and “Fort Worthless” Jim Wright came in, the assault continued.

It was everything you wish was happening today, is all I can tell you. It was everything you wish the entire Republican Party was doing today. It was led by Newt Gingrich, and what was he doing? He was defending Reagan. Now, all of this stuff that hit Drudge and everywhere else last night about Newt telling everybody the country goes to hell if they continue Reaganism and that Newt insulted Reagan and that the Reagan administration failed and Iran-Contra… I never heard any of that. I started doing this particular program in Sacramento in 1984, and I was just as immersed in national politics then as I am now, and I could honestly tell you this.

I’m not denying it happened, don’t misunderstand. I’m just telling you, because it did happen. I’ve got the audio; the YouTube video is out there. Newt did say this stuff. I just don’t remember it. I don’t remember anybody in 1988 telling George Bush, “You’re gonna lose big if you just continue Reagan,” because the whole Republican Party strategy was to fool Republicans into thinking that that’s what Bush was gonna do. Their whole strategy was to tell the Republicans, “Okay, I’m going to.” I remember George Bush at that New Orleans convention. His theme was, “I’m gonna complete my mission,” and it was based off the fact he had been shot down in World War II.

They had the video of him being rescued at sea after his plane was shot down. He had to parachute out of his plane to be shot down. Great hero story. “Complete my mission.” It was all intertwined with continuing what had happened after Reagan, economically. Now, you people know that I am blessed with a pretty good memory. And I don’t remember Newt Gingrich in the 1980s — I’m not denying it happened. I’m just telling you, this stuff was a total shock to me last night when I learned that Newt had said this stuff. (interruption) I don’t know. Well, we’ve got the audio and we’ll listen to it and see whether it was off the cuff or what, ’cause Newt does… (interruption)

It’s like… (interruption) Well, it’s like… (interruption) He does. The latest thing he blurted out is a moon colony. We’re gonna have a moon colony, get 13,000 people on the moon, and make it the 51st state. And we can have honeymoons in space, honeymoons and weddings in space. It would be really funny because of weightlessness. Wait ’til people find out how much fun you can have when you’re weightless! This stuff just came rolling out yesterday. Now, here’s the problem with that. Here we are in Florida and Obama has effectively killed the space program so obviously Newt says (summarized), “Hey, I got an idea for space: We’ll colonize the moon!

“We’ll make at it 51st state, we’ll have weddings and honeymoons and weightlessness.” Well, the problem with that is the other part of his campaign is focused on reducing spending and reforming entitlements and some modification in health care spending, Social Security spending. So you’re in a state where that is a crucially important thing to people. I mean, you’re telling them to do all that and then at the same time you’re gonna go colonize the moon. It’s a disconnect. But that would fall under the category of “grandiose,” and it just came out of nowhere. Then National Review Online has a DEVASTATING piece on Newt.

Elliott Abrams, who was in the Reagan administration for foreign policy. Elliott Abrams is married to the daughter of Norman Podhoretz. Elliott Abrams is of impeccable reputation and character. I think Elliott Abrams… In fact, last time he was at the White House he was walking out of the West Wing as I walked in. He’s always been nice, stopped, shook my hand, thanked me for saving the country. (These guys always say that, then they smile and walk off.) But anyway, this piece by Elliott Abrams, it just slices and dices with the most harmless tone. There nothing vicious about it.

You’ve got another piece by Bob Tyrrell (known in public as R. Emmett Tyrrell. He started the American Spectator.) It just dumps on Newt, and Elliott Abrams’ piece specifically focuses on Newt’s relationship with Reagan and how there really wasn’t one. So this is obviously a coordinated attack that’s designed to take Newt out here in Florida. That’s what’s going on. It’s happening. We all knew stuff like this was gonna happen. We all worry about when candidates are gonna implode and this kind of thing. My only point here is: I didn’t know any of this stuff. That’s the only thing I’m telling you, and I was shocked when I read it.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: You’ve got Nancy Reagan. People have produced, I think, either a letter or a video from Nancy Reagan saying that Newt would be the obvious inheritor of Reaganism. And you’ve got Michael Reagan, Ronald Reagan’s son, who’s endorsed Newt. This Elliott Abrams piece, though, folks, of all the stuff that’s out there is probably the most devastating because Elliott Abrams’ credentials are impeccable. He almost went to jail for the cause. For example, here’s one thing he says about Newt: “As a new member of Congress in the Reagan years — and I was an assistant secretary of state — Gingrich voted with the president regularly, but equally often spewed insulting rhetoric at Reagan, his top aides and his policies to defeat communism. Gingrich was voluble and certain in predicting that Reagan’s policies would fail, and in all of this he was dead wrong.” That’s the tone of the entire piece by Elliott Abrams. But there’s more than just an opposition research document dump here going on. You have Elliott Abrams, Bob Tyrrell coming out with some of this stuff. It is overwhelming, and it happens in one day.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Now, back to this Newt stuff. I got a note from Jeffrey Lord. Jeffrey Lord writes for the American Spectator, which is Bob Tyrrell’s bunch. Bob Tyrrell has a devastating piece: Newt is Bill Clinton, only worse! Oh, it’s devastating. This Elliott Abrams piece is devastating. And they all happen the same day. So Jeffrey Lord says: Wait a minute now, Nancy Reagan, 1985, Goldwater Institute, after the Reagan era — and Jeff Lord says, “Believe me, if Nancy Reagan thought for a nanosecond that Newt was anti-Reagan, she would never have been on the same platform with him.” I can vouch for that. I’ve never seen a more protective wife of anybody than Nancy Reagan. If you in your life said one thing against Ronald Reagan, you were gone. You were banished. You were never allowed to be in the same room.

Talk to the people who knew them both and worked with them, and they’ll confirm that. So Jeff Lord says (paraphrased), “Well, if all this that we’re hearing yesterday’s true, what the hell’s Nancy Reagan doing out there giving Newt basically a huge award?” She said, “The dramatic movement of 1995,” that was going on then, “is an outgrowth of a much earlier crusade that goes back half a century. Barry Goldwater handed the torch to Ronnie,” her husband, “and in turn Ronnie turned the torch over to Newt and the Republican members of Congress to keep that dream alive.” That’s Nancy Reagan in 1985. Now, Jeff Lord worked in the Reagan White House.

He’s posted that Elliott Abrams never said a word to him at the time about Newt, not one. And Jeff says, “Suffice to say the political office of the Reagan White House made it our job to defend Reagan from Republican members of Congress. I never heard any criticism of Newt, either, firsthand from Elliott or secondhand from anybody else,” and then he posts his take on all it is at American Spectator. So what do we have here? Tyrrell says that Newt Gingrich is Bill Clinton without Clinton’s charm. This is a long list of people here who have just come out both barrels blazing on the same day, or within close proximity of the same day: Elliott Abrams, Bob Tyrrell, Drudge, Brit Hume of Fox News, Dr. Krauthammer, the New York Sun, the National Review, Vin Weber.

We’ve got the audio. I don’t have it ready to play yet. It’s back in the stack somewhere. I’ll find it eventually, but he did say all this stuff. I just didn’t know it. That’s what has me stunned. My memory of Newt Gingrich is as a premiere defender of Ronald Reagan. So this stuff caught me totally by surprise. And all these people — Elliott Abrams, Bob Tyrrell, Dr. Krauthammer — have impeccable credentials. And then there’s this. This is a post at The Corner, National Review Online. “Operation Chaos in Reverse.” It’s actually a front-page Washington Post story. “Liberal Groups Join in Florida Ad War Against Romney — Newt Gingrich isn’t the only one trying to beat Romney in Florida.

“Several liberal groups are funding new ad campaigns in Florida, targeting the vulnerable GOP presidential candidate, part of an unusually bold effort by Democrat supporters to bolster Obama’s chances in November by influencing the Republican primaries.” So the Democrats are doing Operation Chaos here in Florida. The unions are running anti-Romney ads, big time, all over the state. This is an expensive media market. There are ten sizeable, significant media markets in the state of Florida. You need a lot of money to saturate this state with TV ads. And these pro-Obama people are coming in. You’ve got a $1 million ad buy from the American Federation of State County, Municipal, Employees. That’s the nation’s largest public employee union. They’re focusing on Romney’s history as head of Bain Capital.

SEIU and Priorities USA Action, a pro-Obama super PAC, have also jointly launched a Spanish-language radio campaign in Florida accusing Romney of having two faces, and they’re even… Reuters has a hit piece on Marco Rubio coming tomorrow. I mean, folks, everybody involved in politics with a vested interest has opened both barrels of the shotgun and are firing at everybody. Every Republican of note and of stature is under a full-fledged assault in this state today. If you didn’t know better after this Reuters piece, you would think that Marco Rubio contributed money to Adolf Hitler’s campaign. That’s how bad this hit piece is.

It just all over. Newt was on Univision. He was on Univision, and he was talking some weeks ago how he gave depositions in his divorce case. There weren’t any depositions in his divorce case. He didn’t give any depositions. His wife told the media there weren’t any depositions. So everybody is scratching their heads. “Why would Newt say that all kinds of friends were available to prove to ABC? Why would he do this? Why would he tell ABC that he had all kinds of friends who could back up his claim that his wife was lying, Marianne was lying that he never did ask for an open marriage — and then tells Univision that he had depositions in his divorce when there weren’t any depositions?”

Then this grandiose stuff with the moon colony! Ha. You add all this up, it’s amazing. You know, I had hopes that this campaign would go on and on and on and on all the way to the convention, and I’ll tell you something that’s happened. Folks, Romney’s getting hit, too. Romney’s doing his own version. He’s got some imploding going on out there with Romneycare. There’s a devastating ad that somebody’s put together, pointing out that Obamacare is Romneycare. Oh, it’s one of Newt’s super PACs. And then there’s another ad that makes the bridge, completes the bridge from Romneycare to Obamacare and does it with Romney’s two advisers that went from Massachusetts to the Oval Office. The point is one guy is emerging entirely unscathed in all of this, and that’s Santorum.

Santorum, nobody is saying a negative word about. He’s not under assault by anybody. And we want this campaign to go on and on. There are two reasons. There are two primary reasons that we want this campaign to go on. I know a lot of people are panicked. They can’t handle all this negative stuff about Republicans in the media every day, but it’s going to happen. If they have to lie and make stuff up, this is going to happen. Republicans are hit every day in the media. There’s no way this can be stopped. You’re just gonna have to come to grips with it. There’s nothing I can do, there’s nothing anybody can do to stop the media assault on any Republican candidate or high-profile personality.

So it’s gonna happen. What we don’t want to happen… If we happen to choose a nominee after Florida, if our race is essentially over after Florida and we have our nominee — either after Super Tuesday or right at Super Tuesday — then guess what? Obama can start his focused negative ads on our nominee in March and run them continually through the election. If the campaign can be dragged out, no winner until right before the convention, then Obama can’t focus specifically on the nominee. They have to focus on everybody that’s running and it could delay him, and Obama’s got a lot of money. One of the ways of equalizing the disparity in the money is to have a long, drawn-out campaign that delays Obama’s focused spending against our nominee.

‘Cause we can compete financially in a two, three-month campaign that starts in September, but we can’t keep up with ‘em starting in March, or it would be hard. The preferable way… The second reason is, keep this conservative debate going in the news, in the media each and every day. So as long as Obama doesn’t know who specifically to destroy, he’s gotta aim at everybody. That means dividing and diluting his resources. Newt’s also stepped in it, too. He said that he was a Goldwater supporter when he was a Rockefeller state chair. These are the kinds of things, as you heard in the early part of the campaign, people worry about what Newt is going to say at any time, and you don’t know where it’s gonna come from and you don’t know… (interruption) Yeah, he did say it. He said he’s a Goldwater supporter. He was a Rockefeller state chair. He was a regional chair for Rockefeller. (interruption) Nelson Rockefeller. Yeah. Yeah. The Rockefeller wing of the party. Correct. Exactly right.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Here’s some audio. And welcome back. Rush Limbaugh, half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.

Tom DeLay has joined the fray. Tom DeLay is now saying Newt Gingrich is another Bill Clinton. DeLay says, (paraphrasing) “Yeah, we’d have leadership meetings almost every day and every day Newt had a new agenda. Nothing was ever organized.” You know, the criticism is a lot of people say Romney doesn’t believe in anything and Newt believes in everything. It just depends on the day. Now, if Romney’s behind this attack, we may have to rethink our opinion of his cut ‘em off at the knees talents. The question is, whoever’s doing this, do you think they have the guts to do this against Obama? That’s the real question. (interruption) You do? Have you seen any evidence of this? Have you seen any evidence the Republican Party’s willing to go after Obama like they’re going after each other? I haven’t.

I hope that Elliott Abrams and Bob Tyrrell and the rest of them will have just as much fire against Obama as they do Newt. I hope that we see this same kind of focused opposition to Obama once that day comes. I really do. Snerdley says, “Oh, yeah, no doubt.” Really? Where’s the evidence? Where’s the evidence that anybody in our party’s got the guts to go after Obama the way they’re going after Newt here, the way they’ve gone after Perry, the way some of them have gone after Romney, where’s the evidence? We don’t have the evidence. We have to wait and see. And I’ll bet you a bunch of people in this audience, if you ask ‘em to make a bet, they would bet the Republican Party doesn’t have the guts to go after Democrats the way they’re going after themselves. I’ll just bet you. We’ll find out. We’ll ask ‘em when I get to the phones tomorrow. Just kidding. We’ll get to the phones today. Here’s Romney. This is an ad and you’ll hear Gingrich in this ad. This is a pro-Romney super PAC Restore Our Future ad.

GINGRICH: I worked with President Ronald Reagan. Worked with Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan playbook. President Reagan. Reagan. Reagan.

ANNOUNCER: Gingrich exaggerates, dropping Reagan’s name 50 times. But in his diaries Reagan mentioned Gingrich only once. Reagan criticized Gingrich, saying, Newt’s ideas, quote, “would cripple our defense program.”

RUSH: April 11th, 1988, Gingrich on a show, host says, “Can the vice president run as Bush on the issues that provided such success for Reagan?”

GINGRICH: I don’t think so at all. I think that the years of 1980-1984 are the past, and the American people are a people peculiarly addicted to the future. If George Bush runs as a continuation of Reaganism, I think he’ll lose because I think on Election Day the American people, given a choice between more of eight years or something new, will vote for something new.

RUSH: So that’s one of the things circulating. And this is January 13th, 2008, four years ago on This Week with George “Snuffleufagus.”

GINGRICH: We are at the end of the Reagan era. We’re at a point in time when we’re about to start redefining, as a number of people have started talking about, that we’re starting to redefine the nature of the Republican Party in response to what the country needs.

RUSH: Newt was one of the early signatories to the premise “the era of Reagan is over.” That’s 2008. (imitating Newt) “We’re at the end of the Reagan era here, in 1988. Nah, nah years of ’80, ’84, that’s the past, American people peculiarly addicted to the future. If George Bush runs as a continuation of Reaganism, he’ll lose.” Newt was wrong. The stuff’s out there. Last night was the first time, and I was shocked, ’cause I know everything, and I remember everything, and I had never heard that stuff before.

RUSH: You know, every time I mention a blogger, it doesn’t matter what blog site I cite, other bloggers send me e-mails saying they’re phonies, they’re creeps. The hatred in the blogger community is funny. Sometimes I’m hesitant to mention bloggers ’cause I don’t like getting e-mails, “That blogger, he’s a phony, he’s a thief, that was mine first, everybody steals.” But I’ve got a blog here, guy named Dan Riehl. He claims that the video of Newt bashing Reagan is bogus, this 1988 audio that we played of Newt saying that Reagan’s wrong.
Here’s the little blog post. “There’s a short excerpt of a 1988 C-SPAN video purportedly showing Newt Gingrich bashing Reagan when talking about how Bush, Sr. should run” his campaign, should not run as more Reagan, but do something new. Riehl writes, “As I suspected, it’s edited to give a false impression. What you don’t see is immediately after when Gingrich praises Reaganism and the Reagan platform. If you can’t watch it all, it begins at about 2:30 in to confirm it’s the same segment. It’s the minute or two afterward you also need to hear to understand that Newt wasn’t bashing Reagan at all. He was merely saying, Bush isn’t Reagan and the GOP needs something new to sell.”

So I knew something like this was gonna happen. It’s not really that it’s been doctored, but that it has been selectively chosen from. So I sent it up to Cookie ’cause I can’t listen to it, I didn’t have the time to listen it. Cookie said, “Look, this thing is an hour long. I’m sure he praises Reagan at some point or another, but I wouldn’t say it’s doctored.” So my expert says it’s not doctored. The blogger says it’s been selectively edited or chosen. So I just wanted to get it out there. I think Cookie is protesting having to listen to an hour of Newt, basically, in order to find — (laughing) — what I asked her to find. He-he-he-he-he-he.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Cookie is defiant. She’s giving me a minute and a half after of the Newt bite and she’s insistent that nobody’s doctored this and nobody’s changed — and I’ve read the transcript, that’s true. Newt still says look, the eighties were great but we gotta look forward, people — people care about the future, da-da-da-da-da. He praises Reagan in the bite, which the first — the — the excerpted bite doesn’t include any of but it doesn’t change the fact that while praising Reaganism, he still says to George Bush, you — you’re wasting your time if you campaign on Reaganism. Nobody wants more of the past. We want to look forward, nothing changes about that. So the — the Cookster was right.

Well, it was a long read, but you get the point. This was quoted from followers of CNN when Bob Dole endorsed Romney: What has happened to the once-proud Republican Party? Where are the Republicans in the mode of Bob Dole and John Warner of Virginia, men of education and intelligence who cared deeply about this county and who you were proud to represent your state?. What we now have are extreme right wing wackos like Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry and Sarah Palin so totally unsuitable for the presidency and viewed by many Independents as total flakes and lack true leadership. We need two strong political parties but the Republicans have “run-off” all reasonable candidates.I’m sorry but the Republican Party,- A Party of HATE has to REAP what it has SOWED– seeds of TEA-PARTY WING-NUTS. Now with Newt SURGING to the TOP they want to kill the crop. Go FIGURE !!!!!

Go Figure is correct…the country is waking up to moral decay and elitists in Washington. We’re tired of them not listening and ignoring the Constitution. Liberals, you see what happened in 2008…another Tea Party fire will happen in 2012. Newt is surging to the top because of who is endorsing Romney-more of the establishment and media…a third party will happen if this continues. We hope eyes open soon before more people believe the crap that’s being slung on Newt Gingrich. Not that he doesn’t have his faults and issues. There is no perfect candidate in the Republican Party for 2012. But, Obama and his blueprint Republican buddy Mitt Romney are not what this country needs…it needs an enema!

Oliver Stone: Ron Paul is the only one saying anything intelligent

Comments Off

Legendary filmmaker Oliver Stone, known for his controversial movies, told Rock Cellar Magazine in a recent interview that he would vote for Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul if he was running against President Barack Obama. “He’s the only one of anybody who’s saying anything intelligent about the future of the world,” Mr. Stone told Rock Cellar Magazine’s Ed Rampell.

Mr. Stone is not the first celebrity to say something positive about Mr. Paul. American Idol winner Kelly Clarkson endorsed Mr. Paul to the dismay of her many followers.

“I love Ron Paul. I liked him a lot during the last republican nomination and no one gave him a chance. If he wins the nomination for the Republican party in 2012 he’s got my vote. Too bad he probably won’t,” Ms. Clarkson tweeted in December.

Mr. Stone is unlikely to receive the same reaction from his fan base that Ms. Clarkson did after making pro-Ron Paul comments. Platoon and Born on the Fourth of July, two of Mr. Stone’s anti-war movies, are most likely favorites of many of Mr. Paul’s supporters.

Congressman Paul (R-TX) is still in the mix to win the Republican presidential nomination, although he trails former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich in the delegate count. Unable to secure a top-tier finish in the South Carolina Republican primary, Mr. Paul is looking past Florida in order to pursue delegates in the caucus states of Nevada and Minnesota.

Mr. Stone is not the first celebrity to say something positive about Mr. Paul. American Idol winner Kelly Clarkson endorsed Mr. Paul to the dismay of her many followers.

“I love Ron Paul. I liked him a lot during the last republican nomination and no one gave him a chance. If he wins the nomination for the Republican party in 2012 he’s got my vote. Too bad he probably won’t,” Ms. Clarkson tweeted in December.

Mr. Stone is unlikely to receive the same reaction from his fan base that Ms. Clarkson did after making pro-Ron Paul comments. Platoon and Born on the Fourth of July, two of Mr. Stone’s anti-war movies, are most likely favorites of many of Mr. Paul’s supporters.

Congressman Paul (R-TX) is still in the mix to win the Republican presidential nomination, although he trails former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich in the delegate count. Unable to secure a top-tier finish in the South Carolina Republican primary, Mr. Paul is looking past Florida in order to pursue delegates in the caucus states of Nevada and Minnesota.

Read more

Fox News panel unanimously agree: GOP can’t win 2012 w/o Ron Paul’s support

Comments Off

Q: “Does the GOP really think they can win without the support of Ron
Paul?”

A1: “No, they can’t.”
A2: “They can’t”
A3: “They can’t”

So, Why Do You Dislike Newt?

Comments Off

Ann Coulter shouldn’t call herself conservative…not after this from the Daily Caller.  She cannot consider herself to be conservative for endorsing Mitt Romney, and anyone who is conservative…will have the choice of the lesser of two evils again. 

Do you keep hearing all the nonsense about the elitists in DC who don’t want Newt to get the nomination? Well, if you check his record, you’ll know why…Newt doesn’t play fair…with either side…his record is one heck of a conservative record. Why support him? After you read this, and you’re still holding your lunch, please read the letter following from Pastor Jim Garlow. It showed me why I like Newt. It showed me that our best hope is with Newt. And don’t give me the crap about the baggage. How many of us could run for president? How many of us have skeletons? How many of us would want to put our lives under that microscope. Then, ask yourself how many faithful presidents there have been, and don’t you think that Newt has the creds to put DC on notice. It’s a long read, but well worth it.

On a Sunday morning appearance on “Fox & Friends,” conservative columnist Ann Coulter explained why Romney fell short in the South Carolina GOP presidential primary, blaming the priorities of South Carolina voters for Gingrich’s success.

“Apparently, South Carolinians would rather have the emotional satisfaction of a snotty remark toward the president than to beat Obama in the fall,” Coulter, the author of “Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America,” said. “We saw it in the debates when Gingrich would say things that didn’t really make sense. That is what you usually associate with Democrats, which I described in my last book, ‘Demonic,’ how mobs behave.”

Some of what Gingrich has said might appear to make sense, she said, but should be analyzed more closely.

“Something that sounds like it makes sense like, ‘Mitt Romney doesn’t have influence over his super PAC — that makes you wonder if he’ll have influence as president,’” she continued. “How many times does Mitt Romney have to say it is illegal for a candidate to have influence on the super PAC. It is not, interestingly, though, for a president to have influence. So it makes no sense if you think about it for all of three seconds, but it sounds like it makes sense. It is just like what you get from liberals most of the time and the cheers and yahoos, and that is what we kept getting from this audience.”

Coulter, who has been a Romney supporter since New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said he would not be seeking the Republican nomination, was asked if Romney should change his strategy now that he suffered a defeat in South Carolina, and perhaps go on the offensive with “fire in the belly.” (RELATED: Christie on Gingrich’s past: ‘Newt Gingrich has embarrassed the party’ [VIDEO])

“No, he’s doing fine,” Coulter said. “This is not going be the electorate in the fall. I am pretty sure we’ll get everyone who voted for McCain — since no one voted for McCain because we liked McCain — it was to stop Obama. We have those voters. Now you have to get people who voted for Obama and having a candidate who goes out and calls Obama a ‘Kenyan colonialist,’ that is not what you need. And at the same time, with Newt Gingrich you get the name calling for the president — very popular with the tea party crowd in South Carolina, not so popular with independents. He won’t put a fence on the border and wants amnesty for illegals. He took $1.6 million from Freddie Mac. But you know, he attacked Paul Ryan’s plan on Social Security. So with Newt Gingrich, you throw out the baby and keep the bath water.”

Coulter suggested that South Carolina voters ignoring Gingrich’s marriage baggage was the product of the state perhaps “going back to its Democratic roots.”

“I think South Carolina is going back to its Democratic roots,” she said. “I mean, to not care about that, that’s the position of the Democratic Party. The arguments I hear on behalf of Gingrich on this is we heard for two solid years about Bill Clinton. I never thought I would hear conservative make those arguments. I promise you, if Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum have cheated on two wives — that we know, the open marriage thing is the only thing he contests, we know he cheated on two wives — I wouldn’t supporting Mitt Romney. I wouldn’t support Rick Santorum.”

Now, the letter from Pastor Jim Garlow….

INTRODUCTION I have been asked repeatedly about my support for the candidacy of former Speaker Newt Gingrich and have decided to put my thoughts in writing. The length of this email is an attempt to respond to many questions that have come to me over many months.

A part of my motivation in writing stems from the fact that I have spent much time with him over the past two years. I am particularly concerned hearing people discuss some aspects regarding him about which they know very little.

Those who disagree with me have every right to do so. I have little compulsion to try to “persuade” anyone. I am, rather, attempting to give explanation to those who are asking for insight.

(Note: I request that if I am quoted, I am quoted accurately and in context. The length of the letter is, in part, so that my observations can be contextualized appropriately.)

SUMMARY OF THIS LETTER This letter is long. Too long, frankly. Given the gravity of this election, plus the relentless ad hominem attacks upon Mr. Gingrich (not merely by Romney but by the “mainstream” media), the letter is rather extended. Thus, for those of you who have only a minute, I summarize as follows:

• I respect Rick Perry and Rick Santorum enormously.

• I have, however, endorsed Newt Gingrich, a position I arrived at in October of 2009, more than 18 months before he announced (although I didn’t know that he would run at the time). Watching him at close range for the past two years has affirmed the decision.

• I fully acknowledge his marital failures and sins and do not defend them in any way.

• I understand the steps of forgiveness and restoration and believe that Mr. Gingrich has walked, and continues to walk, in them. According to one of Mr. Gingrich’s closest associates, I have spent as much time with him about this issue as anyone, except possibly his Washington, DC pastor. For a shortened form of my views on this, see the December 14, 2011 CNN interview on the topic. Click here: http://vimeo.com/33731573.

• I have endorsed him because of his: o Superiorintellect(neededduetothecomplexitieswefacetoday) o Historicalgrasp(neededbadlysoastoavoidrepeatingerrors) o KnowledgeofhowWashingtonfunctions(thus,heisnotintimidatedbythe

process) o Walkthroughtheneededforgivenessandrestorationstepsneededtodealwith

past marital failures and sins. o Articulationskills(neededinordertoservethepresidency) o Commitmenttosocial,fiscalandconstitutionalconservatism o Elderstatesmandemeanorinthiscampaign

1o Churchillianperseverance(desperatelyneeded,giventheradicalsecularists) o GraspofthecorrectdefinitionofAmericanExceptionalism(rightsgiven“bytheir

Creator” to “We The People” with power temporarily loaned to elected officials) based on the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution (something that I believe he articulates better than any elected or previously elected official)

o Understandingoftheseverityofthelossofreligiouslibertyinpresent-day America (we are on the verge of losing this)

o Understandingofseveralotherthingsstatedbelow.

(Note: If you have only time to read a small portion of the letter that follows, see sections: • #9 – PERSONAL ISSUES • #10 – TRANSPARENT, TENDER, TEACHABLE • #21 – QUALITIES

• #22 – SERIOUSNESS OF THE SITUATION Secondly, this is one person’s opinion. You do not have to agree with me. Thank you for allowing me to share my views and insights.)

That is the summary of this letter. Delete if you are out of time. Read on if you want a fuller explanation.

After some disclaimers, I will lay out my thoughts.

1. DISCLAIMER #1: A PRIVATE CITIZEN As I respond to the issue of why I support Mr. Gingrich, I am writing as a private citizen. I am not writing representing any organization with which I am affiliated. No organizations are involved in the writing of this letter. These are my views and my personal views alone.

2. DISCLAIMER #2: INTIMIDATION OF PASTORS REGARDING “POLITICAL ISSUES” The radical secularists have attempted to silence Bible-believing pastors for the past half century. Beginning with the “Johnson Amendment” (which was passed in the US Senate on July 2, 1954 by a voice vote and without discussion and which has never been tested in court for its potential violation of the First Amendment’s declaration of “freedom of speech” and “freedom of religion”), some have attempted to intimidate American pastors not to be “political.”

But what is “political” and what is “biblical?” Preaching about abortion is now declared “political.” Preaching about the practice of homosexuality is now considered “political.” Saying that marriage is defined as “one man-one woman” is now considered “political.”

A few years ago, all of these were clearly understood to be “biblical,” not “political.” And “biblical” they are. Thus, pastors should not be silent on these and a host of other issues (biblical foundation for taxation, issues of national debt, appropriate ways to respond to the needs of the poor, etc.)

If we are to give to Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and to God that which is God’s (Matthew 22:21), then what happens when Caesar begins demanding that which is God’s? The American pulpit should have no governmental intrusion – in any form. That is why the 2,000+ allied attorneys of the Alliance Defense Fund have offered to provide pro bono defense for any pastor who will challenge the (presumably unconstitutional) Johnson Amendment, thus causing it to be tested in court. Although over 700 pastors have defied the (presumed unconstitutional) Johnson Amendment from the pulpit, recorded their sermons, and mailed them to the IRS, not

2

one pastor has been charged. (For more information, click on http://speakupmovement.org/church/LearnMore/details/4702 )

My point is this: some (many?) will scoff at a pastor weighing in on perceived “political” matters. After all, isn’t there a separation of church and state, they ask?

Apparently many biblical figures and many from church history did not abide by this so called “separation.” Nor did the pastors in colonial America in their three hour long (I do not recommend that!) annual “Election Sermons.” Post-Constitution American pastors enjoyed true First Amendment protection for the first approximately 160 years of American history – until the Johnson Amendment.

Bible-based, Bible-centered pastors should be the moral compass for the nation. Speaking out on these issues should be normative for any man or woman of God. There is a new generation of pastors that is rising up. Much to the consternation of the radical secularists, these pastors understand their biblical authority and their Constitutional rights.

3. DISCLAIMER #3: SEPARATE FROM CAMPAIGN This letter is being written without the knowledge of Mr. Gingrich. He does not know that I am writing it, nor has he seen its contents. No members of his campaign have seen it or have been aware that I am writing it.

4. DISCLAIMER #4: PERRY / SANTORUM A preliminary comment also needs to include my profound respect and admiration for Rick Perry and for Rick Santorum.

I have been with Rick Perry and Rick Santorum privately on an occasion or two. I have heard Mitt Romney (twice) and Ron Paul (once) speak in person. I have never met or heard John Huntsman speak in person.

Before I state why I desire Newt Gingrich to be our next president (a position that I have held from October 2009, long before he announced in 2011), I add this about three of the candidates:

• Rick Perry is a profoundly gifted leader. It is quite unfair that he has been so judged on not being a strong debater. I have seen him give profound and articulate speeches. At other times, he seems to falter in his public communication skills. Yet, that cannot take away from his unprecedented leadership in one of the largest and most influential states in the U.S. It is not by accident that Texas (where I lived for 13 years before moving to San Diego) has created more jobs than the other 49 states combined for the past five years. This is a remarkable accomplishment. Out of respect for Rick Perry, I flew to Austin, TX to attend his inauguration. Succinctly stated, he would make an excellent president, and a considerably better president than the current White House occupant. It is unfortunate that he has been so maligned by some debate and speech blunders. Furthermore, he and his wife Anita truly know Christ, and are quite spiritually mature. I have upmost respect for him.

• Rick Santorum is remarkable in every way. He is one of the most consistent, devoted fathers and family men I know. He is a wonderful father to seven children, one of whom has special needs that require massive care. When I have called him to talk to him, and asked if I could pray for little Bella, he shared the phone with her so she could hear the prayer. More directly to the presidency, he is governmentally brilliant. He understands

3

the issues and the leadership that is needed. He is passionate about all the things that really matter, including protection of the family.

I am in hopes that both of them will continue to have far reaching, national influence for many years to come. We need their voices.

5. THOUGHTS ON HUNTSMAN John Huntsman should run as a Democrat.

6. THOUGHTS ON ROMNEY My objection to Mitt Romney is not that he is a Mormon, as it is to some of my evangelical colleagues. My objection to him is that he is untrustworthy on cardinal issues. His “epiphany” from pro-abortion to pro-life and some ongoing lingering questions regarding a potential metamorphosis from gay “marriage” to traditional, natural, biblical marriage appear timed in such a way to create unrest in the hearts of most of us.

I fully recognize that people do change – and hopefully for the better. I am always encouraged when people come to see biblical truth. However, Romney’s “change” makes many understandably suspicious of motives as he moved from running in liberal Massachusetts to running nationally, requiring more conservative positioning.

If Romney is the nominee, the evangelical voting response will likely drop from the 2010 level (approximately 28%) of the electorate to the 2008 level (approximately 23%) and Obama will be elected to a second term.

7. THOUGHTS ON PAUL Ron Paul is a study in confliction. How could he be so smart and correct on some issues, and so incorrect on others? I cannot support such a politically bifurcated candidate. In my opinion, he suffers from “issue bipolarity.” His brash antinomianism (in theological terms) and libertarianism (in political terms) would have all illegal drugs becoming legal. His national defense, or I should say non-national defense, would spell the end of the nation. His abandonment of Israel is unacceptable and an act of betrayal. He is much like a unpredictable uncle who entertains the nephews and nieces around the Thanksgiving table with a tiny touch of common sense and a lot of unworkable ideas. He is likable. Even fun. But his thinking cannot be taken seriously.

8. CORE OF THIS LETTER: ENDORSING GINGRICH Now that brings me to former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, and why I have wanted him for president since October of 2009.

9. PERSONAL ISSUES At the mere mention of his name, some are quick to point out his “personal baggage” so let’s deal with that first.

A question about this issue is what sparked this letter. An out-of-state friend wrote me and said, “Can you help me defend Newt?” I knew – without it being said – that the primary reference was to Mr. Gingrich’s three marriages and his often discussed adultery.

Allow me to respond to that first.

4

First, Mr. Gingrich’s sins are indefensible. I know that. You know that. His critics know that. And Mr. Gingrich knows that. That is the nature of sin. It is indefensible. No one defends his past actions.

Without divulging the nature of the conversations, I will state that I have spent considerable time with Mr. Gingrich regarding his past marital failures – two divorces – and some related poor decisions that he made many years ago. As we all know, he has been asked about this many times. He openly discussed these issues with Dr. James Dobson on his nationally syndicated radio show, Focus on the Family.

I have been privately with Mr. Gingrich, asking very direct, highly personal questions. He looked me eye to eye as I probed about past indiscretions – all reported very widely by the media many years ago.

10. TRANSPARENT / TENDER / TEACHABLE During my private conversations with Mr. Gingrich, I discovered three things:

• I found him to be remarkably and unexpectedly transparent – fully and completely acknowledging his spiritual failures, responding to my very personal questions with unflinching honesty. There was no attempt to “whitewash” transgressions. He did not defend them. Nor do I defend them. As it relates to Mr. Gingrich’s past sins, I merely state that were there no sin, there would have been no cross. We all need the forgiveness the cross of Jesus brings. I was once asked a strongly worded question from a nationally known investigative reporter with one of the three major networks, while in their studio in Washington, DC. “Given Mr. Gingrich’s past, and the fact that you are a pastor, why do you associate with someone like him?” the reporter asked. My answer is that, as a pastor, I look for people like Mr. Gingrich. I am a pastor and I have the privilege of telling people who acknowledge their sin that the cross of Jesus provides healing and forgiveness.” In my meeting with Mr. Gingrich about this delicate issue, he made one particular statement that I asked to share with others, thus making it public. He agreed. Here it is: He stated, “On my bleakest days (referring to his indiscretions), I knew that my sin was sin.” Why is this significant? I spend much of my time trying to persuade people that “sin” still exists, and what they are doing is sin (a most unpopular word). Some pastors won’t even use the word today. God does. So I do as well. If a person knows that their “sinning is sin,” then they are halfway toward receiving correction and forgiveness. An additional insight I had was that, as I conversed with Mr. Gingrich, it appeared to me that he understood the difference between forgiveness (which occurs in an instant) and restoration (which involves an arduous process).

• Furthermore, Mr. Gingrich was profoundly tender during our conversation. I realize the radical secularists, and Mr. Gingrich’s detractors in general, will attempt to poke fun at this statement, but discerning people will know that this fact is truly significant. Allow me to explain its importance. He placed no blame on any other person(s). Blame shifting is common in failed marriages. As one who has counseled many in the midst of divorces, I listen intently for language that would indicate a failure to take responsibility. He evidenced none of that. He placed no blame on his former wives or anyone else. He shouldered the blame. He spoke very honoring of the wife who bore him two daughters. And when he spoke of his daughters, he teared up. He enjoys a superb relationship with his two daughters and his grandchildren. I have talked to one of his daughters at length about this topic. This is not the same man who is now characterized by his critics as the “bull-in-the-China-shop” type Gingrich who led the House of Representatives in the

5

1990’s. People change. And – if he was as forceful as some say he was – he has changed.

• In addition, he was quite teachable. When I probed him on some aspects of bringing “spiritual closure,” he responded with thoughtful and reflective questions, wanting to include the person who is serving as his spiritual advisor. Since I do not “want anything out of him” if he becomes our next president, I have no reason to pander. I have confronted him (privately) on some issues, and I have found him to be very teachable. He has never been defensive. Not once. Wise is the man who surrounds himself with many competent counselors. It appears to me that Mr. Gingrich has done and is doing that.

I cannot know the motives of all Mr. Gingrich’s critics, but it appears that one of the reasons some are fixating on his past marital indiscretions is because they do not want to attempt to deal with Mr. Gingrich’s solutions for America’s present day problems. The obsession with past deeds is to distract the discussion for present day crisis that America now faces.

Allow me to ratchet up a bit. I have spent more time with Mr. Gingrich on this issue than 99.9% of the people who will read this email. I have dealt with people with moral failures, sins and mistakes since 1969, when I accepted my first job as a (youth) pastor, 42 years ago. I am not a novice at dealing with people needing to walk from unrighteousness to uprightness. Out of respect for confidentiality, I will not reveal more about my conversations with Mr. Gingrich. But I need to make a summary statement on this: At the risk of being misunderstood, I would suggest that I am in a better (pastoral and otherwise) position to evaluate his present status than most. I have grown weary of “long distance” attackers who have not invested any time with him privately on these issues, yet who consider themselves to be self-appointed experts on his actual spiritual condition. They need to know “his heart,” and they badly need a fundamental course in hamartiology (the doctrine of sin) and soteriology (doctrine of salvation).

In my evaluating his present spiritual status, I made an unusual request of Mr. Gingrich. I asked him if I could worship with him – at his church, the Basilica, in Washington, DC. I am an avowed Protestant evangelical. Mr. Gingrich worships in a Catholic Church. Our worship preferences are substantially different. But we worship the same God – Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Why did I want to worship with him – at his church? You can learn much about a person when you worship with them. You can, if you are spiritually attuned, sense much. I observed him in this tender environment.

Secularists will likely mock this idea, out of their own lack of understanding and discernment. But I was there. I worshipped with him. I saw a man who humbled himself before God. Those with spiritual dullness will not grasp the importance of this paragraph. The spiritually mature will, in contrast, “get it.”

11. OTHERS? I recognize that secularists in the media and political opposition will desperately search for “other women” from Mr. Gingrich’s distant past. There is a season of his life that he cannot and does not defend. He was the third most powerful man in the world, estranged from his wife for a span of several years, and not adequately grounded upon the truth of God’s Word. I suspect that he would never defend that season of his life. It is what it is. But that season was a long time ago, and it has been repeatedly hashed and rehashed, and it is – by biblical standards – forgiven. At some point, it is disingenuous for evangelicals and conservative Catholics – both of whom highly value the notion of forgiveness – to keep demanding he regurgitate his past.

6

12. FIT FOR THE PRESIDENCY Some take the posture that he can be forgiven as a person, but he still cannot be allowed to be our president. I suspect that, truth be known, we have had far more infidelity in the White House than any of us would want to either know or admit.

This position is valid if the person in question is currently in the act of wrongdoing, an evidence of a “present tense” integrity issue. But if we have a functional understanding of forgiveness, healing, restoration and rehabilitation, then the long term past sins become – in the present tense – a moot point.

But based on what I know, he has walked through the biblical steps of forgiveness.

13. FORGIVENESS A pertinent question at this point is: How many times does a person have to ask forgiveness in order to be genuinely forgiven? The right answer is once.

Forgiveness is not the only construct that is needed. Restoration is needed as well. In that process, one often has to repeatedly explain and apologize for one’s unfaithfulness. Mr. Gingrich has done and continues to do that.

Another question: How long does a person need to discuss his past failures during the restoration process? As one who has been with him on a few occasions, I would think Mr. Gingrich is reaching his “quota.” Remember that no one – including Mr. Gingrich – defends his sins. He calls himself “damaged goods” when he speaks on this topic. It has been a decade or more.

Is there a “statute of limitations” for sin? If not repentant, I would say “no.” If repentant, I would say “yes.” For quite some time, I felt he should “say more, talking about this issue.” But after I saw him refer to it for multiple years, I am no longer persuaded that he has to continuously talk about it. At some point, a person needs to attempt to move on. And we should too.

Are two divorces worse that one divorce? The answer is that every divorce represents a violated covenant or vow. We elected a divorced Ronald Reagan, yet many look back longingly for “the days of Reagan.”

Mr. Gingrich’s situation involves two divorces, and they involve adultery. As bad as those are, they are not the unpardonable sin. My theology is so expansive that it allows forgiveness for King David who was an adulterer and murderer, for the Apostle Peter who denied Christ three times on the night of his crucifixion and for the Apostle Paul who also was a murderer. Mr. Gingrich’s sin is likewise forgivable, and I would contend, has been forgiven by God and, as such, should be by us.

I need God’s forgiveness. All of us do. According to the Scripture, if you or I are going to receive forgiveness, then we need to extend it (Matthew 6:14).

14. FINISHING STRONG Some say, “Well, aren’t you concerned that since Mr. Gingrich has ‘blown it’ in the past, he will ‘blow it’ in the future.” Yes, of course I am. I have that concern for all candidates for whom I vote. I never know when one of them will violate his or her campaign vows. It happens often. I have frequently had the “what if he/she blows it and disappoints me question” on my mind.

7

In fact, I have that question about me. I have walked this life thus far with integrity, but we are all capable of shipwrecking our lives. I want to “finish strong.” I want others to finish strong as well.

Can we mess up? Yes! That is a healthy fear for us all to have. Am I concerned that Mr. Gingrich could self-destruct and bring us all harm? Of course. But, I share that same concern for every candidate and for myself as well.

Bottom line: I want to “finish strong,” living a life of integrity. I pray the same for Mr. Gingrich, and for every other candidate as well.

15. A STANDARD This raises another question. I admit I expect people to hold themselves to high standards. However, due to the attack nature of contemporary media and to the current political climate, we have now raised the standard so high for public office that we are going to see many people not run for office because they have indiscretions in their past.

If we are not careful, we are in danger of raising the standard to a point where we are going to lose the leadership of many who have sins in their past. Due to the merciless way in which the media and the opposing party treat past indiscretions of potential candidates, many will simply not run out of concern for their spouses and children. I do not want to be misquoted or misrepresented on this issue, so let me clarify what I am saying.

If a person has had indiscretion and is unrepentant and unchanged, then that person should be held accountable for the past in the present tense.

But if a person has an indiscretion that is in the distant past and has demonstrated true repentance (which means making a 180 degree turn from their sins) and has humbly followed a course of correction, then that person needs to experience the joy of forgiveness. There is a difference between earthy remorse (that is, sorry they got caught) and godly sorrow (that is, an awareness that they have violated God’s ways). It is my opinion that Mr. Gingrich demonstrates godly sorrow.

16. CONVERSION TO CATHOLICISM Some evangelicals are concerned by the fact that he converted to Catholicism. Mr. Gingrich has been on a spiritual journey. He converted to Catholicism several years ago, partially through the influence of his wife Callista. (She is a profoundly gifted photographer, pianist, French horn player and vocalist, one of the singers in the elite chamber choir of The Basilica in Washington, DC.) Although I am an intentional evangelical Protestant and am one for very clear reasons, his religious change to Catholicism proved to be highly beneficial to his spiritual journey, resulting in a marked devotion to and passion for Jesus Christ.

Although Callista was a factor for his conversion, she was not the reason, in my opinion. There are other deeper factors that influenced him.

In my opinion, these are the factors that influenced him:

• Mr. Gingrich has a profound grasp of and reverence for history. Simply stated, the Catholic Church offers that. (Many years ago, I met a man who told me he had converted from being a Pentecostal to a Methodist. I asked him “why?” He responded,

8

“Because I wanted to belong to something that existed before 1900.” As one who has a Ph.D. in historical theology, I am well aware that the roots of Pentecostalism are traced to times prior to 1900, but I knew what he was saying.) Mr. Gingrich is similar, in that he has a passionate respect for grasping things historically, and he is able to embrace it personally.

• I would add a second dimension, and this is merely my own opinion. Mr. Gingrich has never stated this to me in any form. I personally believe that the Catholic faith offered him greater spiritual “structure.” I would have wished he could have found that in his Protestant evangelical experience, but he did not. In that sense, his conversion has served him well. It is my opinion that this “structure” helped heighten his spiritual intuitions in very positive ways. If he were “undisciplined” as his critics like to (wrongfully in my opinion) say, then they should rejoice that he is within stronger “structure.”

• But those reasons are not the most compelling reasons for his conversion, in my opinion. His conversion to the Catholic Church is based on his love of the “church militant,” to the fact that the church of the Middle Ages “got it.” They knew the enemies of the faith, and they went on the offensive. He sees – as did the church of the Middle Ages – that the enemies of the church, both then and now, was and is radical Islam. Islamicists threaten the entire globe. When he reads history, he sees a church that was willing to confront the most terrifying force of the time. That compels him, and well it should.

Mr. Gingrich is right when he sees the dual dangers of radical secularism and radical Islam. Few seem to grasp it. But he does. And so should the American church. The one church that seemed to “get it” (at least as it related to Islam) was the church of the Middle Ages.

He would never defend the excesses or sinful aspects of the Middle Age Church. Nor would I. For example, I would not defend the brutalities of the Crusades. Those are wrong.

Yet, I refuse to fall into the politically correct, historical revisionism that fails to see that Christians in the Middle Ages were forced to defend themselves against the onslaughts of Islam that came to kill in the name of Allah. And in that sense, there is a direct “connecting of the dots” that can be made between Christians fighting for their lives then, and those who do not want to succumb to radical Islamicists today.

Mr. Gingrich understands the gravity of this current situation. If there are other candidates who grasp this as strongly as he does, they are certainly not able to articulate it in the profound way he does.

17. MYTHS I confess that this might be the least important section of this letter. There are a couple of widely circulated myths that I would like to address as well. They are, in the total scheme of things, relatively unimportant, but I hear them so often that I feel they need to be corrected.

• It is said that he condemned former President Clinton for having an affair while at the same time having an affair. This is not quite accurate. Admittedly, Mr. Gingrich did condemn Clinton. However, I think the record will show that Mr. Gingrich was silent, for obvious reason, regarding Clinton’s affair. Instead he spoke about Mr. Clinton perjuring

9

himself, something that Mr. Gingrich did not do. Admittedly the difference may appear small to some, merely a technicality. And I do not defend Mr. Gingrich’s affair. But in the interest of accuracy, I think the difference should be noted.

• Secondly, he did not serve divorce papers on his first wife while she was in the hospital dying of cancer. For starters, she ask for the divorce. Not him. Secondly, she was not dying. She is, after all, very much alive, these decades later. Secondly, as his daughter has written, there were no divorce papers at that time. What did happen is that a verbal altercation did occur while she was in the hospital, with the then young Gingrich daughters present. It was most certainly an unfortunate event. However, it did not occur as has been widely and wrongly reported. Admittedly, these are not profoundly significant points, but, in the interest of fairness and accuracy, they need to be noted and refuted. One of Mr. Gingrich’s daughters has spoken out and corrected this widely circulated myth. (See http://www.creators.com/opinion/jackie-gingrich-cushman/setting- the-record-straight.html )

18. CRITICS: ALL IDEAS / NO EXECUTION Once Mr. Gingrich’s critics saw that they could not derail him on old immorality issues that have been hashed over repeatedly, they begin to accuse him of being “all ideas, but no execution.”

My response is “thank God we finally have a leader with bona fide ideas.” I would rather have a leader who is giving us too many ideas, than the total lack of solutions that we have had from many leaders in both parties for several years.

Some say he cannot focus on one thing and carry it through. Do they not know that that is an accusation said against many strong leaders? That is why strong leaders surround themselves with strong counselors and strong “execution” people to carry out those ideas that can stand the tests of careful intellectual scrutiny.

Does Mr. Gingrich have too many ideas? Possibly. But he and his team will sort them out, and be able to focus energy on those that have “life” to them.

The thing that has most amazed me as I have listened to him speak over the years – both on television and in person – is his ability to grasp the core of the problem, and drill down on a solution that is actually doable. We need that – badly – right now.

His critics use harsh language, saying he is “erratic, undisciplined and grandiose,” the actual words that came in an article that was emailed to me while I was writing this letter. The author of that stinging article contends that Mr. Gingrich was that way, and has not changed.

I have followed Mr. Gingrich for decades. My wife and I once went to hear him many years ago when he was unknown. He was so unknown that there were only approximately ten people there to hear him, including us.

I am not in a position to say whether he was that way decades ago. But I would contend that I have observed him from a closer range than most people, including that writer.

His campaign has demonstrated profound discipline. He said he was going to wage his campaign on ideas, and he is. He has not demonstrated “erratic” behavior. The author’s example was Mr. Gingrich going on a vacation in the early months of the campaign. If being on a planned family vacation is erratic, may he be more so.

10

Is he “grandiose?” “Grandiose” means, in part, overrating one’s importance. He is, as every one knows, “the smartest person in the room.” He may have been arrogant in the past. But in the present, I find him to be (appropriately) confident of himself and his ideas. Frankly, I find that refreshing.

Another person said, “he is the smartest person in the room, and he knows it.” Well, if it is true that he is truly the smartest person in the room (which he is), then for him to believe it would not be wrong. What would be wrong for him to do is to be falsely modest and not use the keen intellect that is a gift from God.

Mr. Gingrich has been in public office since 1978, which is 33 long years, a third of a century. He has made 10,000 speeches and written approximately 24 books. He has done thousands of interviews. One cannot be in the spotlight that long without their flaws appearing “bigger than life.”

Does he have flaws? Of course. Do you? Yes. Do I? Yes. And if you and I had been under scrutiny for that long, in the national spotlight, our flaws might appear highly embellished as well.

19. PRO-LIFE / PRO-MARRIAGE I have heard some say that he was not a friend of social conservatives and was focused on fiscal conservatism in the 1980s and 1990s. That may or may not be the case.

I do know that his pro-life voting record is sterling at 98.6%, 70 out of 71 votes, a true encouragement for anyone who cares about babies being protected in the womb. He has made it crystal clear the actions he will take as soon as be becomes president is to reverse the murder that is taking place in the womb. He could not be clearer.

I also understand being a pragmatist vs. being a purist. (Note: this is not the same as saying “the ends justify the means” nor is it advocating the abandonment of principles.) Allow me to illustrate. If a group of pro-lifers are running who are also fiscal conservatives, and their constituency is more concerned about the economy than the life issue, I do not think it is wrong for the candidate to talk about the fiscal issues predominantly (while at the same time emphasizing his/her pro-life stance). Although the candidate did not emphasize the pro-life stance as strongly (due to the fact that the constituency did not want to talk about that issue), he/she can still impact the pro-life issue greatly after being elected.

Why have I stated this? Because Mr. Gingrich has been criticized for being “too pragmatic” on this issue. I find no fault with it. It is simply electoral reality. My goal is not primarily to see who can talk the most about saving babies in the womb, but to see who can actually save the babies from being destroyed in the womb.

Consequently, in this case, I tend to understand pragmatism over purism.

Mr. Gingrich is also unwaveringly committed to marriage being defined as “one man-one woman.” The challenge for him is obvious. He is not, based on his past, able to talk about it as he would if he had never divorced. However, he is unwavering on this issue. All who favor traditional, natural, biblical marriage should find great comfort in his candidacy.

11

He will not attack homosexuals, nor should we ask him to. He will be attacked by them, and that will not bother him at all, givien his tenacity. But he does not look for opportunities to “bash” homosexuals, nor should he. He simply stands for bona fide traditional marriage.

20. FISCAL ISSUES As evangelicals, we are frequently viewed as being “dual issue people:” life and marriage. We are not.

We care equally about fiscal issues, as they are all related. I do not see a separation between “social issues” and “fiscal issues.” I see only “biblical imperatives.” As such, I care about many issues, as do most evangelicals. Along with the sanctity of life and the sacredness of marriage is the biblical command that “thou shalt not steal”…from future generations. Thus, our staggering national debt is not merely a “political” issue. It is a biblical and moral issue. And, as such, our national debt is obscene and immoral. The pulpits of America should thunder with that message.

Mr. Gingrich led the way for the Balanced Budged Amendment in the 1990s. I have not talked to him about the specifics of what is needed now, but allow me simply to state my own opinion. We need a balanced budget which states that:

• • •

Congress cannot spend more than it takes in It cannot raise taxes without a super majority vote It cannot spend more than 18% of gross domestic product

Mr. Gingrich deserves enormous credit for balancing the budget for four years as Speaker. He deserves the credit for totally changing welfare. By his past accomplishments, he understands these issues better than any other candidate.

Allow me to shift to the topic of the poor. I distinguish between those who are poor by (1) catastrophe or by (2) systemic issues, as opposed to those who (3) experience self-imposed poverty, due to slothfulness, etc. I am concerned for categories #1 and #2.

It is my opinion that the Democrats do the greatest job of talking about concern for the poor and disenfranchised, yet they have policies that cause the poor to remain a permanent underclass, as demonstrated by the massive failure of 50+ years of the “war on poverty.”

In contrast, Republicans have policies that help provide the most socio-economic “lift” to the poor, but are inarticulate when talking about the poor.

It appears to me that Mr. Gingrich is able to develop both policies and language that has the impact of lifting the poor. (I need to make a disclaimer: I believe ultimately the government cannot totally “lift” the disenfranchised. The church, by addressing the “heart issue,” can – and does. Time and space do not permit me to expand on this here.)

21. QUALITIES The next few paragraphs are the “core” of this letter. I support Newt Gingrich because we need one who can “dig us out” of our current crisis.

He has: • Intellectual depth and breadth. Even his critics stand in awe of the capabilities of his

brain. The most common phrase people use is “he is the smartest man in the room.”

12

And he is. I am ready to have a president who has intellectual depth. The mainstream media have tried to portray Barack Obama as an intellectual. I have serious doubts. (I would like to see his university records released.) With knowledge, we need wisdom. Knowledge is data. Wisdom is how to use the knowledge. Mr. Gingrich has that. Can’t we have an occasional president who is a scholar?

• Historical understanding. “Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it,” said one. “A knowledge of history makes one wise without the gray hair and wrinkles,” said another. His grasp of history gives him an enormous advantage in understanding the solutions to today’s problems. Once I was emceeing an event. I said, “Mr. Speaker, please give us the history of liberalism, beginning from 1932.” His response was, “Well, I prefer to begin with the Enlightenment.” When is the last time we had both a scholar and a pragmatist (normally mutually exclusive constructs) in the White House?

• Inside knowledge of Washington, DC. Life inside the beltway is intimidating. I am becoming less convinced that electing an “outsider” is all that wise. I think I prefer an “insider” who truly understands how things work, and who is right on the issues. Mr. Gingrich is both of those. Mr. Gingrich will not allow the radical secularist to “out- parliamentarian” him. That is desperately needed. It is possible to have a solid, constitutional, pro-life, pro-marriage Christian president in the White House, but unable to move legislation. We need someone who cannot be “bullied” by the system.

• Been vetted. Mr. Gingrich’s past is well known – both positively and negatively.

• Achieved “elder statesman” status. He has earned this recently, by virtue of his conduct during the debates. He has steadfastly opposed attacking his fellow candidates, even when his polling was in the single digits. Our nation is so traumatized by the weak leadership of some Republicans and the horrific leadership of most Democrats, we need a sense of “father is here and all will be well.” Mr. Gingrich has a sense of “elder statesman” status.

• Churchillian fortitude. When Gingrich’s campaign was faltering, in single digits, most would have quit. He did not. He persevered. We need a president who will not waver. We have had enough of the Neville Chamberlain complex in top leadership. We must have a Winston Churchill. We face such serious dual enemies: the radical left secularist and radical Islam, both with the capability of destroying historic America. The left has almost succeeded. And without strong leadership, both will. Jeffrey Lord wrote in the November 15, 2011 issue of American Spectator a thought provoking comparison of 1930s Britain with Churchill’s rise to contemporary America with the rise of Gingrich. (http://spectator.org/archives/2011/11/15/is-newt-gingrich-americas-chur/). Both are flawed, as are all people. But Churchill was needed by Britain, just as American now needs Gingrich’s leadership.

• Articulation skills. It will be interesting to see if Barack Obama will accept Mr. Gingrich’s offer for seven, three hour, Lincoln-Douglass style debates. No other Republican could extend such an offer to the current President, and carry it out. To be blunt, no other candidate can perform at debates with the skill of Mr. Gingrich. But it is more than mere debating skill. It is the capacity to think through issues and articulate them, whether in normal discourse or in a debate. Does that count? It does to me.

13

• A superb grasp of the correct definition of American Exceptionalism. In short, there are nearly 200 nations with constitutions. A few of them mention God in the preamble. Only one nation has sacred documents that specifically state that our rights are given “by their (that is, our) Creator” (Declaration of Independence) to “We The People” (opening large font in the US Constitution) with us as “the People” temporarily loaning the power to elected officials. That is, based on all the constitutions of the other nations of the world, an “exception,” thus the appropriate phrase “American Exceptionalism.” Mr. Gingrich is able to articulate this considerably better than any elected official I have ever heard.

• An understanding of the moral differences. It is no longer a case of “right vs. left” as some might say, thus suggesting these two positions are moral equivalents. They are not. It is not “right vs. left,” but “right vs. wrong.” Tearing up a baby in the womb is not merely “left.” It is wrong. It is sin. Destroying the definition of marriage is not merely “left.” It is wrong. It is sin. Stealing funds from future generations and spending it so that they will be closer to slavery than freedom is not merely “left.” It is wrong. It is sin. Although Mr. Gingrich is not running for “Theologian-in-Chief” but “Commander-in-Chief,” he grasps these issues. He understands the moral component.

• A grasp of the threat posed by loss of religious liberty. Religious liberty is a locomotive on a set of tracks, heading full steam against another locomotive called the “radical gay agenda.” Religious liberty and the radical gay agenda cannot exist in the same nation at the same time. Leaders of both movements know this. One will win. One will lose. Soon. Very soon. Mr. Gingrich understands this, and knows what must happen to preserve religious liberty. His “awakening,” of sorts, was stimulated by two well-known 9th Circuit Court actions: the June 2002 removal of “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance (reversed by the Supreme Court), and the June 2004 Mojave Desert Cross ruling. Those were his proverbial “enough-is-enough” moments. He has not been the same since. He has written a profound paper on what a President Gingrich would do in the appointment of a Presidential Commission on Religious Liberty. Every Christian and Jew should read this paper and – allow me to be blunt here – ponder the consequences of not having Mr. Gingrich’s brilliance in the White House to defend this rapidly disappearing freedom.

• An understanding of war. Whether we like it or not, America is in a moral and economic war. In a few months, we will know whether basic moral values will be reestablished or lost forever. It will soon be apparent which concepts will survive. We will have either:

o Adefinitionoffamilybasedon(bonafide,natural)marriage,alongwithbirthand adoption, or the redefinition of “family” involving a mere collection of individuals.

o Ahistoricandnaturaldefinitionofmarriageoradestructiveandself-absorbed definition based on deviant behavior.

o Ongoingfreedomordebt-inducedslavery,oratleastquasi-slavery. o Religiousliberty(allowingfor–amongallotherfaiths–thefreepublicand

private expression of historic, authentic, orthodox, biblical Christianity), or a politically-correct coerced conformity to an Orwellian-type, state-approved religion (which will exclude historic, biblical Christianity).

o Freeenterprise(basedonthefactthatweweremadeintheimageofGod,with creativity that results in productivity which produces prosperity), or some form of socialistic economic theory imposed governmentally.

o Freeexpressionofthewillofthepeople,orideasimposedonthenationfroman elite (at least in their minds) oligarchy.

14

We are in a war, a war that will determine whether America, as she was conceived, will survive. In war, one needs a strategically and logistically sophisticated warrior, one who understands the nature of fighting and winning. Mr. Gingrich is that warrior. He is a warrior made for this war. Failure to grasp this one key issue could cost us our future.

Allow me to summarize this extremely important section. As conservatives in general, and as Christians specifically, we tend to fight the “symptoms,” not the root. We tend to voice our frustration with the fact that some court just removed the nativity scene from the courthouse lawn. Not Mr. Gingrich. He lays out the constitutional and philosophic wrongness of the underpinnings of that removal, thus “cutting off the enemy at the knees.”

Allow me to give biblical examples of this strategy.

• The Apostle Paul did not say to Philemon, “stop slavery.” Instead he said, “treat Onesimus as a brother.” In so doing, Paul “cut the legs off” of slavery.

• Jesus did not say, “stop treating women as second class citizens.” Instead, he reserved the most important announcement of his earthly ministry (John 4:26) for a woman, and one that was of another and despised race. This would have been unthinkable for his contemporaries. In so doing, Jesus affirmed women as equally valued as men.

• Matthew, Mark and John did not say, “start respecting women.” They simply used the testimony of Mary Magdalene as the first evidence of Jesus’ resurrection. It was unthinkable for a woman to testify in legal courts. The Gospel writers flew in the face of such sexism. In so doing, they undercut the second-class citizenship of the day, and women were as credentialed and as valued as men.

Mr. Gingrich frames his debates in a way that focuses on exposing the root presuppositions of the radical “left.” Most of us are far to symptomatic, ripping leaves off the tree. In contrast, Mr. Gingrich takes a verbal chain saw to the hallow trunks of the trees of radical secularism and the “left.”

Personally, I am ready for a solid constitutional, Christian conservative who not merely has the ability do this (rare enough), but who actually will do it.

22. SERIOUSNESS OF THE SITUATION I cannot overstate the seriousness we face. To say our nation is in crisis is not hyperbole.

Allow me to illustrate this, on a deeply personal level. My wife is in a battle with aggressive and advanced stage 4 cancer. It has come back for the 6th time in 4 1⁄2 years. (We just found this out a few days ago.) When her cancer had returned for the third time (I believe it was) in 2010, I received a phone call from Carol’s oncologist informing me of the recurrence. Carol was not home at the time, thus was not on the phone. I asked him the question no caregiver should ask. “Barring a miracle (which we fully expect) how long do we have?” The starkness of his estimate shook me. A few days later, I sensed that I “heard” (in my spirit, not audibly) the voice of the Spirit of God say, “You are fighting to save the life of your wife; but you are also fighting to save your nation. Barring a miracle, both have a short lifespan.”

Did I hear correctly from God? I will let others help me answer that in time. But I do believe that America has only months left, as we know her. If we do not see a spiritual renewal that is

15

evidenced in both human hearts being drawn to God’s righteousness and is manifested in all areas of life, including in the voting booth, America is “over,” at least as we know her.

I am astounded that Barack Obama and his ideological colleagues have been able to inflict so much damage on this nation in a remarkably short time. Weak previous Republican and other Democrat leaders have not helped the nation either.

We are in a genuine emergency. This is not just another election. This is it. We will see America begin to turn now, or it is over.

Is that melodrama? Is that an overstatement? Is that just “Chicken Little” crying that the “sky is falling?” No, it is not. It is reality.

23. COMPETENCY Newt Gingrich is the most competent candidate, in my opinion. Several others are very good and impressive candidates. But Mr. Gingrich is the one we need in this crisis.

For those of you who say he is not the “purist” that we want, or say, “Well, he is not truly one of us,” allow me to respond.

Follow an illustration with me that pertains to my wife’s cancer battle. If I had the choice between an incompetent Christian surgeon and a highly competent unbelieving surgeon – and it was my wife they were operating on – I would choose the one most competent.

Carol’s first surgeon – one of the finest in San Diego – was part of a non-Christian religion. I do not share his faith, at all. But his religion was not a factor in that moment. I needed profound competence for that 8 1⁄2 hour surgery. He was successful (and he is a very good friend as well).

Allow me to make the application to our present election. If I have the choice between a wonderful Christian (who, cannot demonstrate the superior intellect and Churchillian-type leadership, and who [based on polls this day] is likely unelectable) and a somewhat “damaged, bruised” – yes even flawed – Christian (meaning a man like Mr. Gingrich who admits his sins and who has repented of those sins), yet who has massive knowledge in how to save America, and can actually do it, be assured, I will choose Mr. Gingrich.

I am not demanding anyone to agree with me, but that is my view as one who has been at close range with the former Speaker.

24. REALITY CHECK

As Bible believers, assuming we are going to be true to authentic, historic, orthodox biblical Christianity, we have three choices: Rick Perry, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich. (I see no reason to trust the variances of Mitt Romney. Ron Paul’s odd and strange notions have no “staying power” to get the nomination.)

Rick Perry and Rick Santorum (as stated earlier) are wonderful believers, and consistent on the issues. But here is the challenge: Rick Perry, while having plenty of cash to fund a campaign (along with strong super PACs), lacks the verbal skills to take on Romney and then Obama. Some might debate whether it is fair or not that a person could lose the nomination just because he cannot debate. But fair or not, one cannot win in a sound bite driven world. Simply stated,

16

given the lengthening list of verbal slips, Rick Perry cannot take Romney, then Obama – and win.

Rick Santorum, while being a solid communicator, lacks the immediate influx of massive amounts of cash, along with the organizational machine to stop Romney. Some analysts feel that for him to stay competitive in the race, he would need (based on information as of Jan 7, 2012) to be spending in the range of $2-3 million per week. He spent 100 days in Iowa. He simply cannot replicate that in any other state. And he has no “machinery” in place in the other states.

In addition, he has not experienced the excessive pounding (attack ads) that the Romney machine will deliver on him. Romney will merely hope for Santorum to siphon enough votes from Gingrich and Perry until they are out of the race. Then they will destroy Santorum with millions of dollars of viscous attack ads.

Mr. Gingrich alone has the intellectual strength and bandwidth to refute the ideological fallacies of Romney and Obama. Romney or Obama do not fear debating Santorum. And they certainly do not fear debating Perry. But both would loathe having to face Gingrich in a series of one-on- one debates. They know they cannot take him on. In addition, he withstood (and survived) somewhere between $10-17 million worth of (distorted and false) attack ads in Iowa.

At the risk of being accused of being overly simplistic, only Gingrich can save us from the debacle of having Romney as the nominee. If Romney is the nominee, the base will be as underwhelmed, under stimulated and unenthused as they were with McCain. Romney will lose.

The result? We would have Barack Obama as president once again, which will spell the end of America as we know her, which means the end to Western Civilization based on the complete loss of her great (biblical Christianity) underpinnings. Undiscerning people will mock such a statement. But that will not change the truth of it. Time will provide the tragic validation of that statement.

Due to his massive funds (both in the campaign and in super PACs), and due to his coronation by so called “moderate” (spell that anti-life, anti-marriage “liberal”) Republicans, Mitt Romney will be very hard to beat. Only Gingrich can do that. (Even with his skills, it will be hard.)

Barack Obama will be even harder to beat. He has $1 billion in funding. He has the power of the incumbency. He has a likable personality, photogenic appeal and teleprompter skills. Only Gingrich has the potential to provide in depth expose of the philosophical dangers of Obama. (And, once again, even with Mr. Gingrich’s skills, it will be hard.)

Allow me to be blunt: A vote for Perry or Santorum – at this point – is a way of ensuring that Romney wins the nomination, and then loses the election, thus reelecting Obama.

Beware, fellow Christians, of hyper-spiritualizing this (or any) election. We, as believers, have a pernicious tendency to do that. Don’t do that. It could cost us everything.

It is time to have a reality check. At this moment, those are our choices. No amount of wishing is going to change that.

17

When you find yourself in WWII in Britain with German war planes crossing the English Channel, place Winston Churchill in power – quickly. That is the moral equivalent of what I am asking us to do.

I decided quite some time ago – for all the reasons stated above – that I would embrace Newt Gingrich as our next president. You may or may not agree. That is the beauty of America. You can state your thoughts as freely as I can.

Thank you for allowing me to share why I am convinced Newt Gingrich can best serve our nation at this critical hour. I hope you will, after reading this epistle, arrive at the same conclusion.

Blessings,

Jim Garlow Private Citizen, Husband of Carol for 40+ years, Father of four wonderful adopted children, Grandfather of five fabulous grandsons, Student of history, Pastor, Thankful for America, Saved by Jesus Christ, Lover of God, Guardedly confident about the future.

 

Older Entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 396 other followers