Last weekend, Republican voters in South Carolina picked the candidate they want to be the GOP standard bearer for the November elections: Newt Gingrich. Newt Gingrich? Really? What did I miss? Or better, what did Republican voters in South Carolina miss?
What is not lost to virtually everyone who understands national politics is the fact that there is perhaps no State in the union where evangelical Christians have more influence within the State Republican Party than in South Carolina. For example, Greenville, South Carolina, is home to what could be regarded as the flagship university of evangelicalism, Bob Jones University. There are probably more evangelical churches, Christian schools, mission organizations, etc., per square mile in South Carolina than any State in the country. And the vast majority of them are politically active in GOP politics. So, when a GOP Presidential candidate wins South Carolina, you can be absolutely certain that he or she did so with the support and blessing from a sizeable number of evangelical Christians (and pastors) in the State.
In all candor, understanding the power and influence of evangelical Christianity in South Carolina Republican politics, Newt Gingrich's victory in that State last week is extremely difficult for this writer to digest. I cannot think of a candidate that is more reprehensible to the values and principles that born-again Christians claim to embrace than Newt Gingrich!
Newt Gingrich? Really?
Have Christians (and other conservatives) had complete and total memory failure? To what problem could Newt Gingrich possibly be the solution (unless it's the problem of Gold Diggers running out of good looking rich guys to sleep with)?
If one believes that the problem is out-of-control government trampling our Bill of Rights, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the problem is the lack of Christian morals among our civil magistrates, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the problem is the slaughtering of over 50 million innocent unborn babies, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes that the problem is honesty and integrity in the White House, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes that the problem is out-of-control federal spending, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the problem is the United States catering to the evil machinations of the Security Council of the United Nations, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the problem is more and more outsourcing of America's manufacturing jobs and products, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes that the problem is ever-burgeoning deficit spending, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the problem is the banksters at the Federal Reserve, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the problem is illegal immigration, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the United States gives away far too much foreign aid, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution.
Newt Gingrich? Really?
In the first place, Newt Gingrich is the personification of the word "globalist." Gingrich is a longtime member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Gingrich never saw a globalist agenda-item that he did not enthusiastically support such as: NAFTA, GATT, the WTO, FTAA, the North American Union (by whatever name it's called at the moment), the NAFTA Superhighway, ad infinitum. Gingrich is as much committed to open borders as is Bill Clinton, Al Gore, or Barack Obama. Gingrich is as committed to the advancement of the George Soros-sponsored Agenda 21 "green" initiatives as any person living today.
In the second place, Newt Gingrich's actual record is fundamentally opposite his constant "conservative" rhetoric. Writing for The New American magazine, William Jasper reported, "During his 16 years in Congress, Gingrich has inveighed vociferously against the evils of the New Deal/Great Society welfare state–while voting for every kind of welfare program imaginable: for the elderly, children, the 'homeless,' businessmen, farmers, bankers, left-wing broadcasters, etc. Those votes include: March 21, 1991–$40 billion to begin the unconstitutional bailout of failed savings and loan institutions; June 26, 1991–$52.6 billion for agriculture program subsidies, and food stamps; October 5, 1992–$66.5 billion for housing and community development; September 22, 1994–$250.6 billion in appropriations for the Departments of Labor, HHS, and Education."
And let's not forget that, after orchestrating the "Contract With America" that swept the GOP into a majority in both houses of Congress in 1994 (and promising to reduce the size and scope of the federal government and even eliminate five federal departments, including the Department of Education), it was Newt Gingrich that quickly abandoned those promises–which led to his eventual resignation following the 1996 elections, when voters fled the GOP in disgust after Gingrich's compromises.
William Jasper also reported, "Considering these and other votes against sound fiscal policy, it is not surprising that Gingrich's spendthrift ways have carried over into his personal finances. The 1992 House banking scandal revealed that Gingrich has run 22 overdrafts on his checking account, and this in spite of having voted himself a huge pay raise and having a taxpayer-provided, chauffeur-driven car. Nor is it surprising that his rating from the National Taxpayers Union during the latest session of Congress (the 103rd) was a meager 75 percent. His tax-and-spend record over the years on votes tabulated by Tax Reform Immediately (TRIM) has so often contradicted his rhetoric that the National Director of TRIM James Toft was prompted to remark: 'Professor Gingrich hopefully will never be called upon to teach a course in the proper role of our federal government. His rare votes against bloated big government usually have been prompted by the partisan wrangling of the moment, not by any great respect for, or understanding of, the Constitution.'"
See William Jasper's report at:
In the third place, if the current trend toward nationalizing law enforcement and turning America into a police state disturbs you, Newt Gingrich is the last person in the world you would want to elect President of the United States.
Devvy Kidd writes, "On October 22, 1991, Gingrich voted for an amendment to the federal crime bill offered by Rep. David McCurdy (D-OK) to establish a National Police Corps. Although he didn't vote for the $30-billion Clinton crime bill of 1994, he resurrected it and helped make passage possible. As Rep. Susan Molinari (R-NY), one of Newt's cheerleaders, explained to Michael Kinsley on CNN's Crossfire, 'If it wasn't for Newt Gingrich, you wouldn't have a crime bill.'
"Indeed. The Gingrich-led opposition 'threw' the game, failing to challenge the bill's fundamental flaw–that the federal government has no constitutional authority to take over state and local crime fighting duties–and focused instead on 'pork' in the bill. 'That crime bill stank to high heaven,' charged Pat Buchanan. 'It federalizes crimes such as spousal abuse, giving the feds police power the Constitution reserves to the states.'"
See Devvy Kidds' report at:
The contents of Newt Gingrich's record in this report are merely the tip of the old proverbial iceberg. Gingrich has so many skeletons in his closet; he makes Herman Cain look like the angel Gabriel. And this is the man Christians and conservatives in South Carolina want to be the next President of the United States?
Newt Gingrich? Really?
Ok, now let's really get down to brass tacks. One reason why Gingrich won in South Carolina (and might win in Florida) is because many Christian voters will not vote for Mitt Romney, because Romney is a Mormon; and they won't vote for Ron Paul, because he's–well–Ron Paul.
Of course, many Christians voted for Rick Santorum, which explains his third-place finish. Santorum has built his entire campaign on trying to convince Christian conservatives that he is "their" man by talking up the hot button issues that social conservatives tend to focus on. But Santorum is just another G.W. Bush-type big-government neocon whose Senatorial record clearly shows that he votes with the big-government agenda the vast majority of the time. Some could even argue that Santorum is the elitists "conservative" Manchurian Candidate to pull votes away from Ron Paul. Dr. Paul is the one man the elitists fear the most and will do anything to defeat.
Now, to Mitt Romney. Let me go on record, I won't vote for Mitt Romney either, but it has nothing to do with him being a Mormon. Absolutely nothing! I know a Mormon man who was a candidate for the US House of Representatives in the State of Utah whom I would support and vote for (for any office) in a heartbeat. His name is Scott Bradley. Scott is one of the most principled constitutionalists I have ever met.
Whether a candidate for public office is a Mormon, Catholic, Baptist, Presbyterian, or Pentecostal is absolutely immaterial to whether or not I vote for him or her. The primary responsibility of a President (or any other civil magistrate) is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States and to secure the rights and liberties of the American citizenry. That's it! It is no skin off my nose where he or she goes to church, or even if he or she goes to church. It doesn't matter to a tinker's dam whether they quote scripture or claim to be a Christian. What matters is that he or she honors their oath of office to defend the Constitution and the people's liberties.
And as everyone should know by now, Mitt Romney's track record in Massachusetts, from a constitutional point of reference, is absolutely abysmal. In fact, Romney's Massachusetts's health care monstrosity was the model for ObamaCare. In almost every discernable constitutional criterion, Mitt Romney falls short. And that's why I won't vote for Mitt Romney! In fact, I won't vote for Mitt Romney for the exact same reason I won't vote for Newt Gingrich. (To his credit, however, at least Mitt Romney doesn't have a passel of bimbos hiding under his bed.)
I have said it all over America, and I'll say it again: I would rather vote for an unbeliever who will preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States than vote for a believer who will not preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Next, let's talk about Ron Paul. Many Christians all over America have foolishly rejected the candidacy of Ron Paul. They have done this for reasons which I will outline here.
"Ron Paul is not pro-life," many Christians purport.
Of course, this statement is laughable. As a long-term US House member from Texas, Ron Paul has repeatedly introduced the Sanctity of Life Act. The so-called pro-life GOP in Washington, D.C., had several opportunities to pass this Act when it held power in both houses of Congress and the White House from 2000-2006.
Had it passed, Paul's Sanctity of Life Act would have done two things: 1) it would have declared unborn babies to be human beings under the law, 2) it would have removed abortion from the jurisdiction of the Court under Article. 3. Section. 2. of the US Constitution. This would have effectively overturned the infamous Roe. v. Wade Supreme Court decision.
As an OB/GYN physician, Dr. Paul has never performed an abortion; but he has delivered more than 4000 babies; he has repeatedly introduced the Sanctity of Life Act in the US Congress–but he's not "pro-life"?
Newt Gingrich, as speaker of the House, did absolutely nothing to defund Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers domestically and internationally from receiving US taxpayer dollars. In fact, while Gingrich was Speaker of the House, taxpayer funding for abortion providers increased dramatically! Neither has he ever supported or promoted the Sanctity of Life Act, but since he "says" he's pro-life, many Christians vote for Gingrich and not Paul?
Is something wrong with this picture or what?
"I cannot support Ron Paul because he says he doesn't know whether homosexuality is a sin or not," say many Christians.
Most readers know that I have been a minister of the Gospel for over 35 years. My convictions regarding the sinfulness of homosexuality are well known. I say that so you understand where I'm coming from when I say that whether or not Ron Paul has a personal question as to whether homosexuality is a religious or biological issue has absolutely nothing to do with his fitness to be President of the United States. Absolutely nothing! We are electing a commander-in-chief, not a theologian-in-chief.
Dr. Paul's personal religious belief is not the issue. The issue is his fidelity to constitutional government. What Christians seemingly do not understand is that constitutional government does more to protect their God-given Natural rights than all of the religious rhetoric of all the politicians of the entire country put together!
Dr. Paul understands the nature of government and the nature of liberty. And he is committed to returning government to its rightful jurisdictional authority Dr. Paul knows that the states and local communities are the best protectors of the liberties and the values of the people–including the values relating to aberrant sexual behavior within those communities and states–NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. (Listening to many so-called "conservatives," one may get the idea that they would be fine with doing away with independent statehood altogether and letting the central government in Washington, D.C., run everything. Thankfully, our Founding Fathers were a wiser lot and emphatically left the bulk of governing authority to the states.) For example, if the State of Nevada wants to legalize prostitution, that's Nevada's business. And if Montana wants to make prostitution illegal, that is Montana's business. If Florida wants to make medical marijuana illegal, that's Florida's business. If, however, Montana wants to legalize medical marijuana, that's Montana's business. Frankly, it is none of Washington, D.C.'s business either way! Ron Paul understands that.
Look at all the federal mandates that states and communities are implementing contrary to the values and belief systems of the citizens of the respective states and communities. That would not happen if Washington, D.C., would butt out of our affairs and let us govern ourselves. And if Massachusetts and California want to deprive their citizens of their God-given liberties, the people of those states can either remove those governments from power or move to a State where liberty is protected. But at least there would be some states standing in liberty to which one could go. As it is today, the entire country is under the heavy hand of usurpation and oppression due to the fact that, outside of Ron Paul and a few others in Washington, D.C., hardly anyone inside the Beltway believes in constitutional government.
Plus, look at the inconsistency of trying to elect civil magistrates by some sort of religious litmus test: Dr. Paul has been married to his wife, Carol, for over 50 years without the first scandal involving immoral activity, but because of a personal question regarding a religious issue, many Christians cannot vote for him? But Newt Gingrich can have so many extramarital affairs that he probably cannot even count them all, and yet his personal view of religion and morality are found acceptable to many Christians?
Is something wrong with this picture or what?
"I can't vote for Ron Paul, because he is 'anti-Israel,'" many Christians say.
Here are the facts: Dr. Paul has a Jeffersonian philosophy regarding foreign entanglements. He believes that we should trade freely with all nations, have diplomatic relations with all nations, and live at peace with all nations as much as is possible. He believes that Israel is a sovereign state and, therefore, has the right to determine its own affairs without Washington, D.C., dictating how, when, and what Tel Aviv can and cannot do for its own peace and security. He believes we need to butt out of everybody's business and let sovereign states conduct their own internal affairs. He believes the US military should be used to protect the territory and people of the United States of America and should not be the world's policeman or the puppet of the Security Council at the United Nations. But somehow, that is an unspiritual philosophy and many Christians can't support him?
Newt Gingrich wants to continue the Wilsonian foreign entanglement philosophy by continuing to send troops to fight undeclared, unconstitutional wars; by continuing to entrap and enrage foreign capitols into conflicts that only serve the interests of international bankers and the military-industrial complex; by continuing to use Israel as a puppet to provoke conflict in the Middle East that only serves the purpose of advancing an international New World Order, and somehow this is seen as "spiritual" by many Christians who will support and vote for him?
Is something wrong with this picture or what?
If the Republican Party has a death wish, they will nominate Newt Gingrich as their Presidential candidate. Gingrich is a snake-oil salesman; his words are absolutely meaningless; he has the morals of an alley cat; and he will sell America's sovereignty to an international New World Order and turn our country into a police state. Christians, of all people, should know better.
Newt Gingrich? Really?
© Chuck Baldwin