Saturday, December 31, 2011

Christian Right Talk Show Host Endorses Newt Gingrich...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

Newt with his Halo

I am, as I suspect many who read this humble blog, a limited government constitutional conservative who values liberty and individualism. While I have certainly had many issues with liberal ideology {read socialist totalitarian or in other words statism} I am beginning to realize the fringe right, as well as the religious right present a greater threat to the principles laid down in our founding documents than any proponent of true liberalism. For those who may be wondering what I mean by true liberalism I am referring specifically to the classical liberalism of our founding fathers.

It is indeed troubling when a real constitutional conservative and advocate for liberty is handily trashed by those claiming to be conservative and love liberty. Of course I'm talking about Ron Paul. It is especially troubling when individuals like Steve Deace , endorses Newt Gingrich for the republican nomination to be president. Newtie is, after all one of the biggest, statist in the the big "R" circus tent that effectively envelops the big "R" statists running for their party's choice to sit in the "Big Chair" come January 2013.

As this site has said many times, statism is statism. The only difference between the republican statists and the democratic statists is the color of their respective party's banner. I guess you could say your freedom lies in which statist you choose to select. YIPPIE!

But I digress, so back to Steve Deace and the Newt. Deace has endorsed Newtie, predictably for all the reasons one hears from those who support increasing the size of the MIC, restricting individual rights (think Patriot Act}, and giving religion a voice in governance, something our founders realized as dangerous to a democratic republic.

Here then are some excerpts from Deace's recent article:

This country is in trouble and bold leadership is needed. As someone that has had the privilege to vet these candidates as closely as just about anybody else has, I’ve come to the conclusion there are several good, Christian people running that most years I would vote for.

However, this isn’t most years.

Sadly, there are only two candidates offering a real means by which to actually undo that which the Left has done to this country for the past 50 years, and not just conservative platitudes. One of those candidates is Ron Paul, but his foreign policy is naive at best and reckless at worst. The other is Newt Gingrich, who has campaigned on what I believe is the most important issue facing us as a people—the loss of the rule of law.

The Left has used unelected judges and judicial oligarchy to reinvent the American way of life, from secularism to the loss of the sanctity of life, to the redefining of marriage, the confiscation of private property, and the granting of imaginary rights. There is an entire chapter of my new book devoted to the need for conservatives and Christians to confront judicial oligarchy once and for all. I have spent the past two years of my radio program educating my audience on this issue...


I understand Newt has taken positions and done things in his personal life I do not agree with, but to his credit he has come on my radio program and been very transparent about those things, and has shown humility and a willingness to be transparent in the process.

He has signed the Personhood Pledge I advocated for. He has offered one of the most articulate defenses of marriage and the family I have ever read from a candidate. He has agreed to never sign a budget into law that includes a plug nickel for an abortion provider. He has agreed to seek personhood legislation and a stronger defense of marriage act...


This is a time for leadership, not warm fuzzies. The future is at stake, and we may never get another environment with the country so prepared to challenge the system as we have right now.


... It is my hope the other Republican candidates will follow Gingrich’s bold leadership in providing the country a true alternative to President Obama.

It is my prayer that next year that for once we actually have something to vote for, and not just something to vote against. I am making this endorsement in the hopes that will be the case. Sometimes the most broken people are the ones God does the most tremendous work through. I know that has been true in my life.

I have highlighted the segments that are the real reason behind Deace's support for Gingrich in this race. It has little to do with proper limited constitutional government and liberty. Quite the opposite. For those who would like to read the full article it can be found here.

Newt Gingrich is not a conservative who advocates for a limited constitutional government. He has supported climate change, ObamaCare through his earlier pronouncements on RomneyCare, he advocates that Congress should be able to send out the capital police and arrest judges who rule against views of some in congress, he is every bit as much a flip flopper as Romney, and he will indeed prostitute himself {to be like many others... in both parties} to get your vote.

Lets link to some of Gingrich's record and positions:

Newt Gingrich repeats claim about his record of balancing budget, reducing debt

Character Sketch: Newt Gingrich’s surprisingly moderate record as Speaker of the House

Is Newt Gingrich the Best Candidate for President in the Republican ...

Moving Newt Out Of The Closet: Newt Gingrich's Voting Record ...

Newt Gingrich voting record

A little research and one can find the "Real Newt Gingrich", it is not a comforting find. Certainly if you value limited constitutional government and the principles of liberty the right to be an individual. Deace is wrong, and Gingrich is wrong for America. Now or any time in the future.

Via: Memeorandum


  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  3. Politics is dirty business, Les, and Paul is just as dirty as the rest of them...

    The Paul campaign posted the endorsement of a preacher who want to execute gays, then tried to scrub it. Don't they know you can't hide from the internet?

  4. Unfortunately Rational Nation has, for the first time since it's inception finds it necessary to begin comment moderation.

    Due to increased troll activity that adds nothing of substance to civil discourse this unfortunate course is necessary.

    As the site is monitored regularly it should not be long before all legitimate comments are released.

    All legitimate differences of opinion are welcome. Personal attacks by "anon"... the non person(s) who troll legitimate sites have no place here. Or anywhere for that matter.

    Rational Nation USA thanks you in advance for your understanding.

  5. Silver - before comment moderation hits the sight... I hear your concern, and there of course is legitimacy to it.

    You no doubt have, or will have your horse in the race. I have mine. In this day and age it is indeed more about liberty vs tyranny than ever before.

    Everyone gets a vote, assuming they use it. Let the race begin!

  6. I just checked comment moderation and noticed there were 5 legitimate comment posts that were sent to "spam" ad were being held there. They have been there for awhile.

    My apologies for overlooking these. They have been released and posted.

  7. "and giving religion a voice in governance, something our founders realized as dangerous to a democratic republic"

    i think you need to do a little bit more research on this subject, Les. if you do you'll find that they were not against it, in fact they embraced it. and once you do you'll realize that the Declaration of Independence is the direct result of this embrace too.

  8. Griper - The founders were, for the most part Deists.

    They understood the dangers in state sanctioned religion. Think the Church of England for starters.

    There is a reason to be ever vigilant in maintaining the separation of Church and State. Especially so given the religious right would enjoy being closer to the mechanism of government power.

    Get my drift griper?

  9. Oh, and I have researched it a bit.

    Religion is of a highly personal nature.

    Governance and religion are best left apart with respect to governing a nation.

    The reasons reasons for this to be so are manifest.

    It is all there for the studying and understanding.

    At the end of the day the concept of "separation of church and state" must win the day.

    That is of course unless one wants a theocracy.

  10. By endorsing Gingrich, Deace has endorsed a man who not only does not have a Christian/Biblical philosophy of civil government but also is not even a "conservative" as this word today is popularly understood. Deace's endorsement demonstrates with a vengeance the foolish things that can be done when a person (such as Deace) has no systematic theology, no true understanding of solid Biblical doctrine and no discernment re: the limits imposed on the Federal Government by the U.S. Constitution. I say Deace lacks all these things because if he had them he would NEVER, EVER have endorsed Newt Gingrich.

    John Lofton, Editor,
    Recovering Republican

  11. Not only that Les and Griper, but if you read the Gospels you'll not Jesus was no fan of intermingling church and state either! One could say "the wall of separation" was first proposed by Jesus. And then, of course, we have the history of church and state, and it is invariably ugly and destructive for all involved.

    It is always best to keep church and state apart, for the sake of both and all.

    And Newt, with his usual supercilious, specious, superficial arguments that the Founders wanted us to be a "Christian Nation" is just another example of what a pseudo-intellectual demagogue he really is.

    Yes, there are token, political, rhetorical thanks to God here and there throughout our history, but NONE of it has any weight in real law and THAT is exactly what the Founders intended.


  12. he just shakes his head in wonder. ok, Les, you absolutely certain on this issue i see, so i won't argue. but i'll let you in on a little secret. you can't prove your viewpoint on this issue.

  13. I'll let you in on a secret griper, I don't have to prove a thing. History, and rational sense does it all for me.

  14. When are politicians going to learn that some endorsements are just not worth the trouble, and that certain of them can actually be counterproductive?

  15. history and rational sense does not support yours and jersey's position, RN.

    i hate to inform you but your position is a 20th century concept not a 16th century concept.

  16. Whatever griper... reason and rational thought are what they are.

    16th century (that would be the 1500's) mysticism is NOT reason or rational thought.

    The post stands on it's Merits. Changing the time from the 18th century (that would be the 1700's) back to the 16th century, or the end of the Dark Ages, I am not sure helps your argument griper.

    But, whatever...

  17. he laughs, have to admit that you are correct there, amigo.

    that is what i get for responding before i had my morning coffee.

    tis a bad way to start the new year off. lol

    thewe primary point remains the same tho.

    we must take into consideration that the same men who debated over the federal constitution were the same men who were instrumental in the construction of their State constitutions. So, if your concept of government/religion relationship is true then it would also be true in regards to their State and local governments also.
    would you agreee on this?

  18. Griper - I just lost a rather detailed response to your last comment. Apparently my wife and I overloaded my router as we weer both working using my network and it went to sleep on us. Such is the beginning of 2012. ;)

    As your comment requires more than just a agree or disagree response I shall try to get back with something later. Have to run out for awhile and take care of some other business.

  19. Griper – As promised...

    Let me first begin by stating that the Founding Fathers, those who drafted the Constitution of the United States of America were, for the most part deists. They in fact did believe in a higher moral authority, although as none of them as far I know ever expounded on their religious belief none of us today are privy as to exactly what that might have been. Of course other than what the Constitution specifically states, and the Jeffersonian concept of the “separation of church and state.” This of course is available for all to read first hand, should they choose to research it.

    The founders were well aware of the realities of religious persecution at the hand of state sanctioned religious doctrine. The Church of England, which carried great political weight in England was directly responsible for religious intolerance and acts of profound evil against those who had the courage to stand by their beliefs even when to do so would result in personal harm and even loss of life. It is any wonder why our founders, the great enlightened thinkers that they were so diligently (and correctly) enunciated the freedom of religion as a right of all Americans?

    The founders did not concern themselves with the concept of “freedom from religion”, on the contrary they were concerned with insuring that the “freedom of religion” was enshrined in law so the right of all Americans to worship their personal God would not be infringed. This of course rationally means whatever ones personal God may be, or the lack of a personal God if that be the case. It is not beyond reason to believe the founders were in realty taking steps insure the absolute freedom of religious choice. Whatever that choice may be, including agnosticism or outright atheism. To believe otherwise is to render the reason and logic though of the founder’s irrelevant.

    There can be no doubt but what the enlightened thinkers of a very enlightened time in human history believed in a higher being and a higher moral authority. It is also quite to their credit they understood that spirituality is a very personal thing and that each individual has a right to believe as their conscience guides them.

    It is to their everlasting legacy they understood the great dangers {in fact the historical truths}, that are present when the state and religious doctrine become partners in oppressing the rights of the people to believe and worship as they so choose.

    So griper, refute me if you can or so desire. But do not expect me to adhere to other than what historical fact and reasoned thought (or reasoned extrapolation) would lead one to logically conclude.


As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.