A Pastoral View of Newt Gingrich

Originally posted by DBCJR ^ | Dec 17, 2011 | email from Garlow | Rev Jim Garlow

[glock rocks]

What an enlightening read. I was most impressed by this...

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. Both are flawed, as are all people. But Churchill was needed by Britain, just as American now needs Gingrich’s leadership.

and this...

But I do believe that America has only months left, as we know her. If we do not see a spiritual renewal that is 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 Barak 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.

[savagesusie]

“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. “

Only Newt is capable of this! History (and Machiavelli) states how important these particular qualities are. They are absolutely ESSENTIAL. Santorum is nice but doesn’t have it. There has to be a meanness and cruelty to fight the incredible EVIL that Newt is going to have to fight to make it to the top! They will try to destroy any Conservative that is trying to become President. It will come from both sides. We are in very corrupt and evil times. There are billions of dollars against him.

True grit Gingrich could survive a gruesome battle and actually accomplish some great things while in office. He knows how to use power and he is mean enough to wield it. And I do think he wants the USA as the Founders meant it for his grandkids and daughters. He knows he is getting to the end of his life here on earth and wants to make heaven. ;)

[aposiopetic]

Thanks for posting this. Rev. Garlow writes so clearly and meaningfully. Just to amuse myself, I rooted around on the Web and found what looks like the same letter posted at http://draftcain.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/.

[daniel1212]

Political naivete is a serious problem among evangelicals (less so among Roman Catholic voters),

Considering the overall voting records of both in major elections, with the latter voting far more liberal than the former, either the latter evidence greater lack of discernment, or they actually do discern who is more liberal and thus vote for them, as reflecting their values.

[Irenic]

He knows how to use power and he is mean enough to wield it. And I do think he wants the USA as the Founders meant it for his grandkids and daughters. He knows he is getting to the end of his life here on earth and wants to make heaven. ;)

***************************************

I do think he wants the USA as the Founders meant it for his grandkids and daughters.

*************************************

I would put my life on that statement.

I also firmly believe Gingrich has enough ego to serve us and himself to our advantage

He loves history and this country, so much he would use his last breath to be remembered as THE modern president that helped save and restore this nation.

I trust him completely to do this job. I am not looking for a saint, only a patriot and they're not too far apart in my book.

God bless America

[Christian4Bush]

BUMP for later

Thanks, JimRob! I love long reads.

283 days left until we vote. 358 days until we evict.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Bookmarked.

[metmom]

dm: Political naivete is a serious problem among evangelicals (less so among Roman Catholic voters),

daniel1212:Considering the overall voting records of both in major elections, with the latter voting far more liberal than the former, either the latter evidence greater lack of discernment, or they actually do discern who is more liberal and thus vote for them, as reflecting their values.

My word, yes. I can't imagine more political naivete than voting for a dem *because democrats are for the poor*, as I've had Catholics tell me to my face.

[Alamo-Girl]

Bump!

[Rashputin]

That's the most accurate assessment of Newt overall and Newt in relation to the situation we're in as a nation that I've read. Any such assessment that doesn't take the Christian perspective into account when looking at what we're facing and what sort of leadership we need is only dealing with the symptoms of our sickness, not the disease causing those symptoms.

Thanks for posting this. I've forwarded it to others I know and hope they do likewise.

Regards

[darrellmaurina]

We agree. For clarification, here's the full quote. I wasn't talking about Catholics in general or evangelicals in general, but socially conservative evangelicals and Catholics.

“As social conservatives, we need to recognize that it is not liberalism or compromise to select the candidate best able to win a civil election, even if he would be disqualified from church office. Political naivete is a serious problem among evangelicals (less so among Roman Catholic voters), and we need to think through what it means to have a candidate like Gingrich.”

For a variety of reasons, I believe Roman Catholic pro-life organizations do a better job of educating their people on the practical realities of getting pro-life candidates elected, which includes voting for candidates who are good but not perfect. We have a problem in evangelical circles with splintering of votes and with spokesmen who speak with loud voices but may not represent large groups. Those aren't Roman Catholic problems due to unified central control which (at least in theory) should generate a single message of what the official Roman Catholic view is about abortion.

Of course, there are many Catholics who aren't listening at all and some who are actively opposed to pro-life candidates.

daniel1212 wrote: “Considering the overall voting records of both in major elections, with the latter voting far more liberal than the former, either the latter evidence greater lack of discernment, or they actually do discern who is more liberal and thus vote for them, as reflecting their values.”

metmom wrote: “My word, yes. I can't imagine more political naivete than voting for a dem *because democrats are for the poor*, as I've had Catholics tell me to my face.”

[daniel1212]

Thanks for replying, but you did not specify “Roman Catholic pro-life organizations,” would have to be compared with evangelical pro-life organizations, while your opinion that the former do a better job of educating their people on the practical realities of getting pro-life candidates elected is only a opinion which would be hard to verify, and infers a substantial impact to be meaningful.

But what much data consistently shows is that RCS overall vote liberal, and elect pro abortion candidates. Below is much statistical data from various agencies, even some Catholic sponsored or which are referenced by them in sounding an warranted alarm.

http://www.peacebyjesus.com/RC-Stats_vs._Evang.html
http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/liberaltable2.html
http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Statistical_Correlations.html

[darrellmaurina]

Thank you. These are interesting statistics.