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.
This San Diego pastor has taken the time to write eloquently and honestly about Newt Gingrich.
The above is just a small excerpt.
As Christians we should be able to discern between someone who has sinned, recognized it and repented versus someone who is committed to sinning and protects it by hiding and justifying it.
Liberals assume there is no difference and that we see no difference.
And Clinton got impeached under the feminist dominance (DNC dominance) of society where men were drilled and persecuted for any degree of personal interaction or flirting with a woman in the office. While that is going on and harming a lot of people, complete with sexual reeducation of men and systematic discrimination against them in employment, Clinton was using an intern for blow jobs.
In addition, he was impeached for commiting perjury in a legal case. He should have been removed from office and had he been, we would not have such a corrupt government today. Obammy would have been too afraid to run guns to cartels and pass on money to his friends when he got into office; but now he knows, anything goes. They all do.