Why I Am Endorsing Newt Gingrich for President

newt-gingrich1

By Steve Deace

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, and was a vocal proponent of Iowa’s historic judicial retention election last year, and Newt’s assistance with that effort was vital.

After offering every candidate in the race the chance to show they understand the gravity of this issue, Gingrich is the only one who has demonstrated he does, and can also use the bully pulpit of the presidency to educate Americans on the need to return to the rule of law.

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 that would limit the judicial oligarchs’ ability to legislate from the bench.

With these steps he has shown the leadership this country desperately needs. Electing another Obamney from the ruling class changes nothing. Electing another nice conservative with no proven ability to govern or a killer instinct to take on the system changes nothing, even if it makes us all feel warm and fuzzy inside.

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.

I suppose I could stay silent and let the process run its course, as many other so-called leaders are doing, so as to not worry about alienating some of my fellow believers by making this decision. But then I’d have to look my children in the eye years from now and explain to them why I stood by and said nothing when I had the chance, as more hackneyed Obamneys finish off what’s left of the greatest country God has ever shed His grace upon.

Recommended For You

I’m willing to take full responsibility for this decision, just as I hope those that have chosen to support other candidates who themselves have fatal flaws are willing to do the same. 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.

 



  • http://twitter.com/Oil_Ranger Oil _ Ranger

    Awesome!  Happy NewT Year 2012!

  • http://twitter.com/Oil_Ranger Oil _ Ranger

    (hate that picture though)

  • Doctor Elefant

    Newt? I’m supposed to believe an establishment neocon like Newt Gingrich is going to change something for the better?

    I thought Tom Woods made a great case for Ron Paul on The Steve Deace Show and that’s who I’m going with.

  • JenIA

    really disappointing!

  • Shirley Davis

    Agree 100% that without Gov. Huckabee, Newt is our best choice.  He is so intelligent, and seems to have great ideas of how to proceed with the future.  It is so important with all of the things Pres. Obama has done the past for years, that we have someone who can get in there and make needed reversals.  He has proven before that he can work across the isle (if we don’t gain the Senate).  I am encouraged by your endorsement.   Thank you for taking a stand!
     
    Shirley Davis

    • freedomgirl

      Newt’s favorite president is FDR.  He calls himself a Wisonian. He is no different from Obama.

      • neocontrotsky

        He even chose the same day that Obama bragged about liking Teddy Roosevelt to say the same thing!

        • Jasonn Allen

          This goes into detail why we shouldn’t support Newt.

          Agree with it or not, but we shouldn’t just ignore what Beck has to say.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owmZinzmTbM

          • Anonymous

            I heard it and I ignore it. Beck wants to pick a few things from Newt’s past, distort and exaggerate. Let’s do that to Beck…why would you listen to a manipulative alcoholic/drug addict who abandoned his wife and kids?

          • Jake Larson

            I judge the facts separately from the person who gives them. Facts are facts regardless of who the messenger is.  But that shows you why you should NEVER take anyone’s word for anything. Always read the footnotes.

            Sorry, it’s not BECAUSE Beck says it. It is what Beck actually says.  He made a pretty good argument about Newt being a progressive. What his motives in making that argument doesn’t change the argument one way or the other.

            Same goes for Deace. I personally think he only did this (when all is said and done) because Huckabee seems to have such and influence over his thinking. But regardless of WHY Deace made the case, it doesn’t change the case he made.  I just thought it was a weak case that Deace made that didn’t address the important concern that Beck showed regarding Newt’s progressive tenancies.

      • Anonymous

        Newt has said favorable things about several presidents including Reagan whom he worked closely with. To take amiable statements and distort them into adopting a philosophy is stupid. Look at Newt’s actual legislative accomplishments – balancing the budget, reforming entitlements and cutting taxes. Also, Newt’s leadership helped elect GOP majorities which doesn’t happen very often…conservatives seem to in-fight and lose because they can’t find agreement.

    • Anonymous

      Shirley you realize (pun intended) that Newt is a liberal, and supports most of Obama’s agenda?

      Why are Christians always suckers for people who promise to change and do something different once we hand them enormous, intoxicating power?

      The Kingdom of God is in heaven, not on earth.

      • Ghertenberger

        respectfully asking then who???

        • Jake Masters

          Paul seemed to be able to unite most of the anti-establishment forces
          and he would take our country in a better direction. We worry about his
          foreign policy but as long as we have at least one nuke, we won’t be
          messed with. We have time to focus inward and in fact if we don’t take
          the time to focus inward our foreign policy will fall apart as our
          nation falls apart.

          Letting foreign policy determine your decision at this time of our
          history  is just letting unwarranted fear stand in your way.  Paul never
          said he was a Pacifist.  If someone messes with us, we will make them
          pay.

          • Markwonderlake

            Ron Paul cannot lead or govern. He has never written a bill,worked with anyone in congress.
            How will he get anything done, congress still has power,he will not be voted king?

          • p t

            Lie! Ron Paul has written hundreds of bills. Worked with Barney Frank on the bill to cut $1T for international military programs. Voted against all those bills that were unconstitutional. If you think that voting against the majority who was busy to hijack the constitution and human liberties was a sign of inability to work with anyone in congress,  think again, maybe you need a doctor. But don’t lie about Ron Paul- the only congressman who was brave enough to defend constitution.

          • Anonymous

            So Paul worked with Barney Frank – that must make Paul just like Frank. Use the same logic here if you use it with Newt.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Nancy-Smith/100001914473514 Nancy Smith

            One only needs to check Gingrich’s record to see what he stands for.  He is a liberal-Progressive.  I’m sorry, but that is just the truth.  Please do some more research.  So very much is at risk.  

          • neocontrotsky

            It takes a heck of a lot of leadership to vote “no” over and over on the kind of wreckless spending that the rest of the GOP supported over the years.  It takes a lot of leadership to talk about the Fed and the damage it does for decades while being mocked and ridiculed, only to have gradually built up a consensus among the population that even the other GOP candidates like Newt/Santorum/Perry/Bachmann now copy the desire to audit the Fed when the same GOP machine types four years ago laughed at the idea. 

            It takes leadership to be the first GOPer I have seen in my life to actually inspire and convert young people and non traditional republicans into believing in taking power away from the government, something that is normally the other way around. 

          • Anonymous

            And while Paul was voting “no” on the reckless spending, he made sure there was pork in the bills for his own district.

          • Anonymous

            An earmark is a request.  A lawmaker gets money for his district, but the government takes it to use for other things, an earmark is a request to have that money given back to that district for a highway, or a new water treatment facility. Most earmark money is traded back for votes on unscrupulous bills.  Ron Paul explains this and defends his requests for money for his district. 

          • neocontrotsky

            Earmarks represent around 1% of spending, and only take place AFTER the total amount of spending has been decided.  It is just as consistent as being against the income tax, yet taking every legal deduction one can find.  It is also a way to stop the executive branch from deciding where the money is spent.

            What everyone else does when they vote yes on those bills is pork.  When RP votes no on the bills, but puts in earmark requests, it is most certainly not pork. 

            It is a great issue for the GOP to try and use to distract from the fact that they don’t actually advocate real spending cuts and never have.  They sure have a lot of evangelicals and other GOP base members fooled though!

          • strayaway

            Ron Paul pushed through a bill last year to audit the Federal Reserve. It was watered down in the Senate but it revealed that the Fed had secretly handed out $16T to banks including European banks. That  made the Wall Street bailout look small. Newt, on the other hand, is a buddy of the Federal Reserve and lines his pockets at Fannie with taxpayer money.

          • Lee

            He wrote a bill to overturn Roe vs. Wade. 

          • Anonymous

            I agree Ron Paul2012!!!!

          • OneWhoCare

            Here’s another pusher

      • Shirley Davis

        Sorry Dixie….don’t agree with you.  However you are entitled to your opinion.  If you look at his voting record you will find him very conservative. Nothing like Obama at all.  I will add a quote I really like from Pastor Jim Garlow . . . “At some point, it is disingenuous for Christians who highly value the notion of forgiveness –to keep demanding people regurgitate their past.” This say it all. (Taken from a portion of a letter he wrote about Mr. Gingrich)

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Nancy-Smith/100001914473514 Nancy Smith

          Shirley, he supported TARP, No Child Left Behind, fingerprinting gun owners, Cap and Trade, a single payer mandate for healthcare and the establishment of the Dept. of Education, to name a few.  You are right that his voting record was conservative for awhile, but he took a distinct and drastic swerve to the left and stayed there.  If you are wanting to reduce the size of government, Newt is not the man.  There will be more wars, more bailouts and I’m afraid, a crash of the U.S. dollar.  It’s just the truth, Shirley,  Please do more research on his record.  

          • Shirley Davis

            Hi Nancy, I’m the first to admit that he has made mistakes in the past and he himself has admitted that too.  If he could change things now – that is what is important to me.  We need a Winston Churchill type leader with our country in the mess it’s in.  It will serve no purpose to nominate a candidate who can not win the nomination (or) be able to win against Pres. Obama.  I’m trying to look at the “big” picture and support who I think would have the best chance to get our nation out of the hands of the far left leadership we have now. 

          • strayaway

            Shirly, If Newt’s wives couldn’t trust him , what makes you think that you are in a more special relationship with Newt enabling you to trust him?

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Nancy-Smith/100001914473514 Nancy Smith

            Hi, Shirley. :)  The thing is, Gingrich has not said he made mistakes with the things I mentioned and there are many more than that.  He hasn’t changed, Shirley. You are absolutely correct that our country is in big trouble.  Probably more so than anytime in our history.  But, electing someone who will do the wrong things is not going to help us.  Paul is the only one running who accurately predicted the housing bubble and our economic crisis.  He knows how to turn it around.  He is an Austrian economist.  It is Keynesian economics and a government run amuck, that got us into this mess.  As far as who can beat Obama, do you honestly believe Independents and any Dems will crossover to vote for Gingrich?  Gingrich who has made it quite clear that he has no problem disregarding our Bill of Rights.  They will not. Surely, you must know that.  Only Paul attracts people from across the political spectrum.  I’ve never seen anything like it since Reagan ran.  Ron Paul is right.  Freedom brings us together. 

          • OneWhoCare

            Nancy,

            You are such an idiot. 

            Ron Paul is anti-american. Blamed us for the 9/11 disaster, and complete moron. You should have listened to him in an interview with CNN reported.

            Ron Paul wants to be friends with Humaini of Iran. What an idiot!

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Nancy-Smith/100001914473514 Nancy Smith

            The choice comes down to, Dr. Paul, or our country’s bankruptcy, the loss of more of our national sovereignty, and more wars.  It’s really that simple.  Please choose wisely.

          • OneWhoCare

            It’s funny how your posts seems to distort the facts. And funny how you call this moron Ron Paul of your a Dr, as if that should add a clout to his personality.
            Ron Paul is a dangerous man, far left radical!

            Dr Gingrich could bring everybody Democrats and Republicans together. He’s a man of compromises that are needed to get forward.

        • Anonymous

          This guy supported TARP and the prescription drug plan, the latter of which gave Obama intellectual cover with the right to pass Obamacare.

          Newt is in fact for single payer health care.

          I will offer you this.  Name one PRINCIPLE that Newt holds that is conservative.  Not a policy position, but a PRINCIPLE that guides his decisions and morality.  Just one.

          You see, I can say I am a Christian, and I can ask forgiveness for my sins, and I can say all sorts of lovely things about Christians and my faith, but if I don’t strive to behave consistently with Christian ideology, then I am in fact a Christian, or a liar and a hypocrite?

          Where are the candidates with principles?  Who can you count on to always vote a certain way, and not change their mind for personal gain and self-aggrandizement?

      • Dcmick

        “[S]upports most of Obama’s agenda…”

        Have you lost your mind?

        • Anonymous

          No, I haven’t.

          Newt and Obama both think FDR was a great President.  No conservative worth a damn would have much good to say about FDR’s policies or practices.

          Newt is for single payer healthcare.  He is for more foreign liberalism.  He is for bailouts like TARP.

          The only meaningful difference between Newt and Obama, is Obama can keep his marriage vows.

        • Jason Allen

          This is the best case against Newt that must be answered before I can support him.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaeRIgX0ppo

          • Anonymous

            I heard it and I ignore it. Beck wants to pick a few things from Newt’s past, distort and exaggerate. Let’s do that to Beck…why would you listen to a manipulative alcoholic/drug addict who abandoned his wife and kids?

          • Jnmeek58

            anotherinterestedreader, glad to hear there are some people still out there that are actually still thinking intelligently. The ONLY candidate in this primary that has ANY record of success for having accomplished positive conservative legislative idea of less government and balancing the budget is Newt Gingrich. Is he perfect? No. Is anybody perfect? No, including these so-called soap box christians who have no capacity to forgive people for any of their human shortcomings. As J.C. Watts recently said, people that think they are without flaws… well… that’s their flaw!

    • Moondoggie

      Freedomgirl…..get your facts straight. FDR is farthest from favorite list.

      • Jake Masters

        Go to youtube and type in Gingrich and FDR and you can hear it in his own words.  That’s one of the good things about the Internet.  The information is out there if you are just willing to look.

        • Markwonderlake

          Yes, great for taking things out of context!!!!

          • James Allen

            This goes into detail why we shouldn’t support Newt.

            Agree with it or not, but we shouldn’t just ignore what Beck has to say.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owmZinzmTbM

          • Anonymous

            I heard it and I ignore it. Beck wants to pick a few things from Newt’s past, distort and exaggerate. Let’s do that to Beck…why would you listen to a manipulative alcoholic/drug addict who abandoned his wife and kids?

    • Mikewest

      Newt is an obvious glutton
      who can’t even manage his appetite much less a country.

      Philippians
      3:18-19

      18(For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell
      you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ:

      19Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and
      whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.)

  • Anonymous

    Newt is not a conservative, he is a progressive republican who wants to use government to fix all our problems. Government IS the problem.  Big mistake Steve.

  • Aaron from Cedar Rapids

    Rick Santorum

  • http://www.facebook.com/dataylor89 David Taylor

    Steve, I praise God for the boldness He has blessed you with and thus has blessed all of us. Blessings to you and your family and Go Blue!

  • Anonymous

    Steve Deace supports family values alright. That’s why he is endorsing Newt Gingrich because he’s started several of them. 

  • Saulon123

    Disappointing!

  • Bill H

    Well Okay Then…… Wonders never cease! It has been an interesting year!
     
    I agree about the picture. I don’t like it. Is Newt supposed to be the next Messiah? Or maybe the angel of light? It certainly reminds me of the Icons and Idols of my past.

    • http://www.facebook.com/sharon.shown Sharon Shown

      No, Bill…just a normal and regular person like everyone else out here…who has great ideas and would like for the people to be with him…

  • Tony Isaacs

    What a cop-out!  A serial adulterer and hypocrite is your choice?  So much for family values, huh Steve?

    • Shirley Davis

      I love this quote . . . “At some point, it is disingenuous for Christians who highly value the notion of forgiveness –to keep demanding people regurgitate their past.” This say it all. (Taken from a portion of a letter Pastor Jim Garlow wrote about Mr. Gingrich)

      • Anonymous

        This is not about forgiveness Shirley.  It is about his policies and what he has stood for and his record and how he will govern as president.  He is still a big government progressive and that is why he should not be elected or trusted.  Nothing will change if he is president.  That is the issue, not about forgiving him.  Yes, he did some awful personal things and that does speak to the heart of his character, but looking past that, you see his stand on the issues and that is what we need to focus on too.  Even those who governed with him, don’t back him, they realize he is not a good leader, they threw him out as speaker and he was fined for ethics violations.

  • JenIA

    Michele Bachmann!!!

    • Anonymous

      I have never wavered, it has always been and will always be, Michele Bachmann, the one true conservative that we can trust.

      • Dbq170

        Way to go rejoice 7!  Michele is the best conservative out there this year!  Who else will fight to repeal Obamacare?  Not Ron Paul!  Not Newt! Not Mitt!  Ray

  • Zack E. M.

    I’m very disappointed in you Steve.  You have just personally stabbed family values in the gut.  Marriage is a sacred act.  So sacred you can have as many as you want and cheat on your wives just so long as nothing homosexual.  Things like this are why people have a hard time taking the Christian right seriously. 

    • http://www.facebook.com/sharon.shown Sharon Shown

      …and comments like you have made makes it look very bad on Christians in general…to pass judgment on another and then not be able to forgive them even when they have shown humility and have had forgiveness…how else does one act? Perhaps you have held ‘family values’ higher than God, himself…just saying.

      • Anonymous

        Steve passes judgment on people all the time.  That’s why his overlooking Newt’s sins is getting criticized.

      • neocontrotsky

        Forgiveness and choosing to support a political candidate are two entirely different issues.  I don’t even have to look at Newt’s past to see how just a few months ago he supported the individual mandate option for health care, trashed Paul Ryan’s plan, and still has yet to offer what specific budget cuts and the amount he will actually cut in his first year of office. 

        We sure get plenty of specifics on the next war he would like to start, but nothing on cutting government spending.

  • http://www.facebook.com/brandon.lancaster Brandon Lancaster

    I appreciate your analysis and understand you didn’t make this decision lightly. But given the field it makes the most sense. 

    • Anonymous

      It makes the least sense!

  • Neal Headlee

    What is so naive and reckless about avoiding “entangling alliances” as our “Founding Fathers” said we should do?  Do you have an answer for that Mr. Deace?

  • S Robinson

    I am glad to see an endorsement from Steve and I’m glad he clearly gives the reasoning behind his choice….after all, it isn’t just about what choice you make, but how you made the decision.  Thank you for your candor, Steve, and for the leadership to be an educator about issues, applications, and the process.  Enjoying the ride….

  • Anonymous

    This is my first and will be my last time I ever visit this site. As a evangelical Christian I am absolutely disappointed that any person with any moral compass would support a person that is antithetical to normal morality.

    Your dying? I am divorcing you…
    Your sick? I am divorcing you…

    Very sad.

    • Da Doctor

      Get your facts straight about Newt’s divorce….and you’re no Christian because WE are told to forgive.

      • JenIA

        Just because I forgive someone does not mean I am willing to make them president!

      • Anonymous

        It has nothing to do with forgiveness, it is about his policies, which have been all over the map, he is a big government progressive and nothing will change when he is in Washington, he can not be trusted.

        • http://profiles.google.com/dpullen.allied David Pullen

          Right! And it’s about CHARACTER!…. C-H-A-R-A-C-T-E-R!

          Gingrich has NONE…but he certainly is ONE!!!!

    • http://www.facebook.com/sharon.shown Sharon Shown

      @AhrimanGate: I suppose you failed to read this part: “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.” You have said that you are a ‘evangelical Christian’, however, you forgot one huge thing…Jesus said, “…if one cannot forgive others, my Father in Heaven will not forgive them”. Think about it…

      • Anonymous

        Sure, you can be forgiven, but to consider these indiscretions coupled with the ethics violations, insider dealings, support of TARP, support for the individual mandate, profiting off taxpayer money at Freddie, and support for continued warmongering in the Middle East… I think this speaks loud and clear to the man’s character and disregard for true traditional conservatism.

        • Joe

          Gingrich like Obama is another pawn of the CIA.

      • JenIA

        Forgiving someone is one thing…voting for them for president is another. I can forgive Newt but would not vote for him to be the president!

      • Anonymous

        Forgive, but don’t forget.

      • http://profiles.google.com/dpullen.allied David Pullen

        Well…he DID come on his radio show! I KNEW there had to be a reason!

  • http://twitter.com/reformedcast Scott Oakland

    Great to see your endorsement of Newt in Iowa. He is objectively the best choice. I hope Iowans will be swayed in this important turning point where the GOP elite are trying to pick our candidate for us.

  • http://twitter.com/ThomasPaine_Fan tea-partier

    How can you support someone who supported TARP?

    Wow!

  • http://www.facebook.com/sharon.shown Sharon Shown

    Thank you, Steve, for being so bold in realizing what the country is in need of. This runaway of the judicial courts over the past 40 years has been part and partial of the deteriotion of what the founders wanted; what God ultimately desired for America and any country that desires to live within restraint or any morality. Like you, I hope others will follow suit to endorse Newt; to study Newt’s website to see where he stands. Also, it would be most valuable if many would view a range of Cspan videos about Newt from actual recorded House discussions and also have videos in their entirety without the snippets put out by the media for their own selfish purposes.

    • Imfullofhope

      Ron Paul people wouldn’t take you up on watching the Cspan videos.  They would rather believe and be influenced by the millions of dollars of negative misleading ads by that campaign.

  • Navymum

    Newt has been the second most effective conservative since 1980 and Ronald Reagan.  We need him again and he has shown in this fight he can take a punch and keep on fighting. Art Laffer supports him.  Huckabee supports him.  J.C. Watts supports him.  Newsmax supports him. 

    • James

      None of them are conservative!

      • http://www.facebook.com/brandon.lancaster Brandon Lancaster

        Are too. Are not. Are too. Are not.

      • Anonymous

        Earth to James!! Earth to James!!

    • Paul

      Newt is the right person for this time in our history. There will be a vote soon to move the debt limit from 15T to 16 to 17T. It will take courage and an economic plan to undo what the progressives and milktoast republicans have done to us. When you are trying to do the right thing you will take heat from both the left and the right. Newt will weather it. He is also right on foreign policy which differentiates him from a particular candidate with fervored followers. 

      • neocontrotsky

        And what is Newt’s plan to cut government spending?  Please let us know because he has yet to tell anyone else about the specific details he will cut in the first year.  The reason is because he won’t cut anything, just like when he was speaker!

    • Paul

      Newt is the right person at this moment in our history. The government is preparing to increase the debt limit from 15T to 16 to 17T. We need a leader with courage and an economic plan (Newt has both) to undo what the progressives and the milktoast republicans have done to us. He is also correct on foreign policy which differentiates him from a particular candidate with fervored followers

  • Da Doctor

    Newt is the only answer.  Romney is a fraud.  Paul is an idiot who’s 77 years old and could die anytime who has ideas that are more in tune with Stalin’s than any conservative.  Slick Rick Santorum couldnt’ win in his own state, and Pretty Michele can’t win.

    So, if you want to keep the country in Obama’s hands for four more years, vote for anyone other than Newt.

    But then, don’t bitch when Obama continues his path of destruction of this country.

    • Anonymous

      Stalin was a Communist who advocated the state, violence and theft, Paul is a Constitutionalist who advocates peace, liberty and property.

      If you really can’t tell the difference, please don’t vote.  You’re liable to hurt someone, maybe even yourself.

      • Markwonderlake

        And Paul is OK with gay marriage……etc etc. The man is wrong on soooo much.

        • neocontrotsky

          No, paul has flatly said that marriage is between a man and a woman.  What he has also said, however, is that the government has no place in that issue.  As Tom Woods pointed out in one of his appearances on Deace’s show, the state being involved in the role of marriage was an anti-Christian accomplishment of the French Revolution.  The more power the state takes on in terms of Christianity, the more it manages to damage it.   

          Even speaking on a practical matter, if the government has the authority to decide what marriage is one way or the other, why can’t it decide that its past interpretation (man and woman) was incorrect, and that gays should not only be able to marry, but that everyone else should be forced to accept it?  It is not by coincidence that I point out that example, since it is exactly how things are progressing at the moment and exactly why Christians should be against the government having any role in marriage. 

    • http://www.facebook.com/rsownbey Shane Ownbey

      Romney is the only candidate that can beat Obama!

      • http://profiles.google.com/dpullen.allied David Pullen

        Thanks Shane! A small fact everybody here cares to ignore…

        Newt CANNOT beat Obama, and all the hopey wishful thinking won’t make it so. 

        • Phi

          Nonsense.  Newt is the only one who can beat Obama.  Romney is nothing but a safe bit of window dressing for a Senate takeover.  If we want Obama out of the White House, then Newt is the only Republican running who can do it.

          • http://profiles.google.com/dpullen.allied David Pullen

            I’ll take a man of TRUE character over a man who has cheated on and divorced his wife TWICE. Simple thing that…but no President has ever been elected who has.

        • Henry Wilson

          I don’t want to beat Obama if that means someone worse than Obama will come on the scene later on.

          Obama is the symptom, not the disease.  Don’t let your hatred of him, as justified as that hatred is, control you.

          Because that is exactly what the Republican Establishment is hoping for.

          If Romney is the candidate then I won’t vote. If America is going to be destroyed by progressive policies, I rather it be a Democrat who destroys it.

          David, haven’t you learned anything from Bush? Or do you still like him because he was on your “team”.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Nancy-Smith/100001914473514 Nancy Smith

        Shane, no one is going to cross over to vote for Romney.  It’s just the truth.  While Paul already has huge support from Independents and yes, even some Democrats who are disillusioned with Obama, have said they would vote for Paul if he wins the nomination.  Frankly, I haven’t seen such support across the political spectrum for a candidate, since Ronald Reagan.  I guess Ron Paul is right.  Freedom does bring us together.  Paul is the only Republican who can beat Obama and is the only traditional conservative in this race. 

    • Jeff Luecke

      Ron Paul rides his bike 10 miles or walks three miles every day! He’s a physician who knows how to take care of himself. This man’s not going anywhere anytime soon. RON PAUL 2012!!!

    • James

      Wow – Ron Paul is more like Stalin and the other candidates who all support the end of the 4th amendment (Patiot Act – Treasoneous Act). PLease don’t tell me you were home schooled. Public Education, I can understand your brainwashed thought process!

    • neocontrotsky

      Trust me, you don’t want to go down the path of comparing who is closer to Stalin’s political positions if you are not a fan of Ron Paul but like Newt.  

      Are you aware of what Marx advocated in terms of a central bank, mandatory government schools, government controlling major industry, etc? 

    • Anonymous

      Obama is looking forward to running against NewtRomney, he has all their baggage to throw at them. 

  • Ezra Winter

    You are a sick human being.  Very sick and very disturbing.

  • Elli B

    Santorum…and I have no intentions of changing my mind . I’ve been with him when polls showed no chance of making it..Why would I abandon ship, now that Fox shows him in 2nd place? He may not make it all the way to the White House. But when I’m committed, I stay committed. I will be a caucus captain Tuesday and do my best to persuade my precinct to select him.

    • James

      He’sd not in second – The media lies – Palenty, Perry, Cain, Newt, Now Santorum – come on don’t yoou see what is going on?

  • David53916

    I don’t get this endorsement at all.  

    Ok.  Yes, I’m a Ron Paul guy, so there’s that.  But, hear me out.

    Paul aside, you have Bachmann, Perry, and Santorum still available.  All three of these candidates have far superior social conservative credentials than Gingrich.  Why not one of those three if you can’t go with Paul?

    And don’t give me “electability” answers, either.  Newt’s crashing and burning in the polls, and independents, moderates, libertarians, disenfrachised liberals and democrats, traditional conservatives, etc. WILL NOT back Newt.  Newt WILL guarantee an Obama victory.  

    And his poll positioning is only getting worse.  

    Steve, Ron Paul really is the best balance of actual conservativism AND ability to win.  You’re making a big mistake with Gingrich.  

    • Imfullofhope

      And you’re making a big mistake with Ron Paul.  Ever check out his stance on marriage?  If China ever wanted to pick a time to attack our country it would be when Ron Paul is president and then don’t come griping.  He’d be a disasterous president.

      • http://profiles.google.com/dpullen.allied David Pullen

        Agreed. And if he thinks Ron Paul has a snowball’s chance in hell of being elected, much less winning the nomination…he’s not being serious…too much Paul “kool-aid” running around here. Be glad when the primaries are over…

      • James

        Ron Paul doesn’t want the government involved in marraige period. You want to crawl to the government to ALLOW you and your wife to get married?
        Ron Paul voted to go after those involved in 9/11 – Iraq our buddy our pal thsat we armed had nothing to do with 9/11. Please research topics before writing the TV (is a box of deceitful lies) as are some radio talk show – cough cough – fooled again!

      • Anonymous


        If China ever wanted to pick a time to attack our country”

        Huh?  The country whose economy relies on our consumption?  The country who would still have a defense budget 1/5 the size of the US under Paul’s proposed defense budget? The country, whose central banks are so ridiculously overleveraged, they’re one small shock from having a financial crisis of their own?  This absurd notion that Paul would somehow drop our defenses is so ridiculously irrational, I feel silly having to defend this nonsense. 

        His stance on marriage where the federal government does not have jurisdiction on enforcement is the Constitutional conservative position.  Big government is big government… whether fiscally, economically, socially, or militarily.

        It’s truly sad that the one candidate who actually takes his oath seriously is the one considered “disastrous”.

  • mdl

    thank you for looking at who Newt Gingrich is today….we all have sinned and come short of the glory of God…..good for Mr. Gingrich that he is willing to face his past.  I truly believe he has had a life changing experience with God.  And, I certainly will not point fingers because I am not perfect.  He is the only candidate with the experience and the ability to tackle this out of control government that we have.  I truly hope your listeners are willing to forgive as they have been forgiven.

    • Anonymous

      Nothing about forgiveness, he is forgiven, but his policies and how he will govern is what we should be worried about and that hasn’t changed.  He is a big government, arrogant progressive and not to be trusted. 

    • neocontrotsky

      Why hasn’t he proposed any specific budget cuts for year one then?  There is only one GOPer currently running who has proposed real cuts, not reductions in the rate of growth, in his first year, and it is not Newt.

  • James

    Nice! The phony left/right paradigm is in plain view but I am glad because this will help Ron Paul! Thank You…

  • Anonymous

    Endorsing a big government progressive thrown out of DC after slapped with 80+ ethics violations, profited off the taxpayer expense at Freddie, endorsed TARP, an unrepentant warmonger (contrary to what modern Republicans believe, it is Ron Paul’s non-interventionist foreign policy that is the true traditional conservative position), and thrice-married prototype of the Washington insider?

    The true Republican party got sick with Gingrich in ’94 and died with Bush in ’00 with the advent of big government, budget deficits, increased federal bureaucracy, and perpetual warmongering out of the old Wilsonian “spread democracy throughout the world” mantra. 

    With all due respect, this endorsement makes zero sense if your intent is to promote traditional conservatism.  That mantle belongs to only one person running – Ron Paul. 

    And for two fascinating reads on the hypocrisy and insanity of the current GOP/DEM foreign policy, I give you the following:
    http://thenewamerican.com/opinion/jack-kerwick/10375-the-many-contradictions-of-the-paulophobe 

    http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-12-30/iowas-choice-dr-paul-or-u-s-bankruptcy-more-wars-and-many-more-dead-soldiers-and-marines/ 

    Steve, you should know better, especially regarding foreign policy.  While I respect your opinion,this is truly disappointing.

    • Anonymous

      The key here is “slapped” – you did not point out that out of 84 “violations” 83 were thrown out. Oh but that isn’t important is it?

      • Anonymous

        I’m not sure if you’re trying to defend him, but there’s simply no getting around that he’s a big government progressive (FDR is his hero??) and epitomizes the Washington insider.  How, in any sensible way, can Newt be considered a traditional conservative?

        • Anonymous

          Call it defending if you like, I just don’t like it that all this misinformation takes place whether it is a Bachmann or a Santorum or a Gingrich.

  • http://www.facebook.com/brandon.lancaster Brandon Lancaster

    There should be no doubt that Newt is a good man. Has he made mistakes? yes. Has he asked for forgiveness from God and people around him? yes. Is God a forgiving god? yes. Should Americans be forgiving? yes. Will our party be stronger if we can eliminate the hostile attacks against one another? yes. Will it unify our party? yes. Can the next president unify the country? Yes, as long as they can get there without being divisive and using demeaning and manipulative tactics. Attack ads are manipulative and leaders don’t manipulate, dictators do. Leaders inspire.

    • JenIA

      Can I for give him, yes. Will I forget it all and vote for him for president, NO way!!! Is he a smart man, yes but he is not even a conservative no matter how many times he asks forgiveness.

    • George Maxwell

      How can you say that Newt is a good man.  Not saying he isn’t but you were the one who made the statement so validate it.  What is your criteria for claiming he is a “good man”?

      • http://www.facebook.com/brandon.lancaster Brandon Lancaster

        Newt has inspired many people in his life. And as a person in their 20’s I look to Newt to unite this country and bring us back to common sense. He’s full of life, and loves people. He’s devoted his whole life to serving his country and his era is not over. As a person in their 20’s I can say that he has my trust.

  • John

    For all you “Christians” throwing mud at Newt because of his past Marriages and affairs, If he’s made Peace with God why is it that you play the part of the Pharisee? Go ahead and cast the first stone!! You should pick up like Newt ask forgiveness and MOVE ON. After all the Master said “Go and sin no more”. Also “how many times should someone be forgiven in one day 7 times? no but 70 times 7″!!!! The man is the best choice and he has the conviction to bring about the change that America needs. Even for those of you that dislike him!

    • Anonymous

      By the same rationale, why do you guys shoot down the one candidate who embraces the foreign policy prescription consistent with the Prince of Peace, Jesus Christ?

      So-called Christian conservatives are all for Christian values, as long as they don’t have have to exercise the judgment or prudence of the son of God.

      Jesus would not recognize you as his people.

    • Doctor Elefant

      Geez, John. By that logic, we could just forgive President Obama 70 X 7 times a day and quit complaining. Right? 

      We are either going to forget all this big government and empire building through reckless warefare and return to the principles set out by our Founding Fathers in the Constitution, or we are going to default as a nation, in which case we will be forced to go back to the Constitution but be left to only hope nobody invades our broke country. We really don’t have any choice… Ron Paul in 2012.

      • Shirley Davis

        Big difference here. . . . President Obama hasn’t asked God for forgivness.

        • neocontrotsky

          How do you know that?

          • neocontrotsky

            What I am getting at is how do you know:

            1)  That Newt really asked for forgiveness
            2)  Whether or not Obama has asked God anything

            All we can really judge politicians on is what they have done, not what they are currently saying.  The typical sociopath politician will SAY anything to get endorsements and votes, but what they actually do once in power is another matter.

          • Shirley Davis

            I know that Newt told me and a room full of other people that he had asked God’s forgivness.  I am taking him at his word.  I am not God, and I’m not albe to see his heart, but neither is anyone else that says they don’t think it’s real.  If he isn’t sincere, he will answer to God not us.

            As for Mr Obama, I’ve never heard him admit to making any mistakes….let alone say he’s asked forgivness for them.  Just observing what I’ve seen.  Again, I can’t see his heart, so that is also between him and God…. (whichever one he prays to)  Not sure it is the same one I believe in.

            I do agree that you can’t always, (ok, maybe most of the time :) believe what politicians promise.  But after hearing Mr. Gingrich speak at several functions, I chose to believe him.  If I’m wrong, so be it.  God is in charge of that too.

          • neocontrotsky

            “I am not God, and I’m not albe to see his heart, but neither is anyone else that says they don’t think it’s real.”

            I am sure we agree on many other things, but this statement of yours is actually my point.  We can certainly forgive him, but since only God knows what is truly in Newt’s heart, all we as humans can do is go by is his record to predict what future decisions he will make. 

            It is also entirely possible that Newt is being sincere, yet will still make a lot of the same horrible decisions he has in the past due to poor judgement, not necessarily a lack of repenting.  The global warming ad with Pelosi, the gun control votes (the safe schools act and the Lautenberg Amendment), support for TARP, support for the individual mandate aspect of Obamacare, attacking Paul Ryan’s plan — which didn’t even include real cuts, anyway, not offering any specific budget cuts for his first year in office, etc all make me think that even if the man has truly repented, he will still continue to make very poor decisions. 

          • http://www.facebook.com/mstrotman1 Mark Strotman

            re take at look at the issues you just wrote and take a look at the reasoning and you might find that Newt was actually saying we conservatives also care about the enviroment but that there are private solutions to these, not government, the individual mandate was initally a conservative issue but thru private institutions not government,paul ryans plans included the same forced mandate that obama care did that’s what Newt oppossed, at least Newt is willing to bring fresh ideas to the table to create a conversation and has actulally asked us as citizens for their ideas thre his web site. i encourage you to go there to newt.org and read his 21st contract with america. are all decisions going to be correct NO but it takes guts to admit when your are wrong and then make changes. take a look at who Newt is now not what he is preceived to be. He has always been conservative

          • neocontrotsky

            The ad with pelosi did not say “we can find private solutions to help the environment” — the ad specifically said to contact your representative in congress — aka the government to let them know what you think about climate change.  Not even newt is making the claim you are about the ad!

            There is nothing and has never been anything conservative about the individual mandate.  If some fake conservatives want to claim it is, they are probably the same types who never actually cut any spending or abolish any government agencies yet talk a good game about getting DC under control.

            I have seen Newt fail for a couple decades and take far left positions on a number of things like his votes for the Lautenberg Amendment and the Safe Schools Act, so I don’t need to go to his website to see him bragging about being pro gun when his record is not.

          • Anonymous

            Fine, we agree that he was forgiven for past mistakes, but that doesn’t change the way he will govern.  He is still a big government progressive and nothing will improve in Washington with him as president.  Look at his  record on policies and what he has backed in the last 20 years.

          • http://www.facebook.com/mstrotman1 Mark Strotman

            no he’s not, as speaker the balance budgets actually paved they way to re pay over 400 billion of prior debts and i have look at his record lower taxes less regulations lower spending and allow the markets to succeed. which by the way if companies can not make a profit we are all out of jobs.

          • Jay Stevenson

            He told you?  Well you do know that politicians have been known to LIE from time to time.

            Or are you saying that you are such a good judge of character you can tell when someone is lying or not?

            Wow, because I know when it comes to politicians I have been lied to in
            the past.  Sometimes I could tell but not because I “looked the
            politician in the eye” but because I have done my homework and could
            cite exactly a vote that contradicted the lie. 

            Saying something doesn’t make it true.  I am not saying Newt was lying
            to you. I don’t know.  I can’t read a man’s heart like I guess you can. I
            just can go on what a person has done as being the best predictor of
            what that person would do in the future.

            Every once in a while a ‘Road of Damascus” conversion happens but that
            is the rare exception.  As a rule, past behavior predicts future
            behavior. At least that is the best we have to go on. 

            Sorry, I just can’t afford to believe politicians anymore.  I need from them far more that “Just Words”.

            Most politicians think that lying is just “Part of the Game”. Yeah, it
            bothers me that they we just see it as just “a game” when so much is at
            stake.

          • PJ

            Shirley, I think we as Christians can do nothing but forgive others, but God never commands us to trust them. We Obey God’s word, hope in Him and His methods and ways of doing things, and make judgments based on the fruit He says we are to judge by. King David was a man after God’s own heart because he was a man who truly repented (it’s a story of what a loving, merciful and forgiving God we have IF we truly repent. But David’s sin was what prevented him from being the effected leader after his sin. Read the story of Absalom sometime again. 

    • Imfullofhope

      Agreed.  I’m tired of people’s high and mighty and judgemental attitudes toward Newt.  There’s no doubt in my mind that he would be our best choice.

    • Anonymous

      This has nothing to do with his past marriages, it’s about his policies and how he has stood on them over the last few years.  He is a big government progressive and nothing will change in Washington with him as president, he is not to be trusted.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Nancy-Smith/100001914473514 Nancy Smith

      No, it is not up to me to judge Newt for his past marriages.  But, it is up to me to evaluate the impact his policies would have on our country.  His support for bailouts, Cap and Trade, gun control, No Child Left Behind, advocated the creation of the Dept. of Education, ….

      Newt isn’t a small government conservative.  His actions show he is a big government Progressive.  He talks a good game, yes.  But, his record does not match his rhetoric.  

      Today is a sad day.  I expected better from Mr. Deace.

      • Bfh

        You are very good at throwing spaghetti at the wall, but none of it sticks.

        Newt supported bailouts and No Child Left Behind? When? He left congress in 1999.
        Any bill advanced after 1999 and you would have no way of knowing if Newt would have signed off on it when it put to a vote. Not every bill is kneejerkingly horrendous or great.
        (Pssssst. The Founding Fathers created legislation too.)

        Newt on Gun Control –

        The Second Amendment: Individual or Collective Right?

        Gingrich is a firm advocate of a citizen’s right to bear arms.

        “The right to bear arms is not about hunting. It’s not about target
        practice … The right to bear arms is a political right designed to
        safeguard freedom so that no government can take away from you the
        rights that God has given you, and it was written by people who had
        spent their lifetime fighting the greatest empire in the world and they
        knew that if they had not had the right to bear arms, they would have
        been enslaved. And they did not want us to be enslaved. And that is why
        they guaranteed us the right to protect ourselves. It is a political
        right of the deepest importance to the survival of freedom in America.”  -http://2012.republican-candidates.org/Gingrich/Gun-Control.php

        I am fed up with Ron Paul supporters spouting about what is and isn’t conservative when it comes to foreign policy. What ISN’T conservative is Ron Paul. Does our foreign policy need some rethinking? Absolutely. Does the military budget need pruning? Absolutely

        If another holocaust erupts on the other side of the planet, where millions of people, women and children included, are gassed and starved and shot, should the U.S. intervene? Absolutely.

        Ron Paul has flatly stated he wouldn’t have intervened on behalf of the Jews during the holocaust.
        It is one thing to have the view that America is full throttle toward nation building and that we can’t afford it, many agree, Ron Paul is full-throttled in the opposite direction. He is a fruit loop.

        Now, as far as Newt’s real accomplishments?

        As speaker –
        *balanced budget for 4 years straight
        *the oft cited “Clinton Surplus” is in actuality the Gingrich Surplus
        * beat back the Obamacare of its time, Hillarycare
        * ushered in the return of the house to the GOP for the first time in 40 years
        * Gang of Seven exposed the House Banking Scandal
        * Laid Out the Contract for America
        wiki
        2.1 The Fiscal Responsibility Act2.2 The Taking Back Our Streets Act2.3 The Personal Responsibility Act2.4 The American Dream Restoration Act2.5 The National Security Restoration Act2.6 The “Common Sense” Legal Reform Act2.7 The Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act2.8 The Citizen Legislature ActAs a blueprint for the policy of the new Congressional majority, Micklethwait & Wooldridge argue in The Right Nation
        that the Contract placed the Congress firmly back in the driver’s seat
        of domestic government policy for most of the 104th Congress, and placed
        the Clinton White House firmly on the defensive.
        George Mason University law professor David E. Bernstein has argued that the Contract “show[ed]… that [Congress took] federalism and limited national government seriously,” and “undoubtedly made [the Supreme Court decision in United States v. Lopez more viable.”[7]

        What did Ron Paul accomplish in his 145 years as congressman, again?

        • neocontrotsky

          Newt is saying NOW that he supports the second amendment on his website, but he voted for the Lautenberg Amendment and the Safe Schools Act, both of which are extreme anti-gun laws supported by the Chuck Schumer types in the Democrat Party.

        • neocontrotsky

          “*balanced budget for 4 years straight
          *the oft cited “Clinton Surplus” is in actuality the Gingrich Surplus”

          Neither one were real surpluses.  Had they been, the debt limit would not have been raised under Clinton.  What happened under Clinton is somewhat complex, but the basic summary is that money going into the government for Social Security was used for general funds, as well as readjusting the interest rates on the balance to be better in the short term but worse in the long term.

          Besides, had there been a real surplus, what was the excuse for Gingrich not actually getting government agencies abolished and spending massively cut?  The best he did was attempt to reduce the rate of growth on programs like medicare — which he now refers to as a cut when it is related to the military budget! — but there were no agencies abolished.  Newt blew an amazing chance to really cut back the power and size of the state, and look at where we are at now. 

    • neocontrotsky

      I don’t think anyone really cares too much about his three marriages.  Supporting global warming/cap and trade views in his ad with Pelosi, voting for at least two gun control laws, supporting the bailouts, stating that the Ryan plan was “right wing social engineering,” praising progressive icons like FDR and Teddy Roosevelt, the lobbying for Fannie and Freddie while being clueless that a housing bubble was coming, the lack of any specific details on cutting the budget in the first year besides vague references to it, etc are far, far more concerning. 

  • http://twitter.com/ThomasPaine_Fan tea-partier

    Steve, I just thought I’d remind you that Newt Gingrich’s favorite President of the 20th Century is FDR. That’s right, the President who grew the size of government the most in the 20 century. That’s Newt’s favorite President. And you’re endorsing Newt. You’re endorsing the New Deal. You’re endorsing the Great Depression. What a joke.

    • Anonymous

      What was the title of this guys book again?

  • DJW

    I respect your decision, Steve! I put alot of stock in what you say, because we  both have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I also believe that every person , especially believers, have an obligation, before God, to make a responsible decision based on what we know of the candidates, input from wise council (that would be you, Steve) and how it washes out through the filter of God’s Word , the Bible. Our country DESPERATELY needs a strong leader! I am still undecided, however, your endorsement will certainly help as I make a decision!

    • Frank M

      Many of us believe we have a *personal* relationship with Jesus Christ. That’s wonderful!  Notice how we don’t say we have *collective* relationships with Him, only *personal* ones? It is the individual that Christ touches. It was also the individual that the Bill of Rights was written for. Moreover, it was written to protect our choice to accept Chirst, and to practice our faiths as we see fit, just like He would have it. It couldn’t be easier to pick a candidate; just go with the only one who is the true champion of the Constitution, the greatest document ever written, the document that professes and guarantees our right to follow the Golden Rule that Christ gave us. In that way, we’ll finally be free again to “do unto others” both at home and abroad.

      • Frank M

        In case I have to spell out which candidate I was referring to: R-O-N P-A-U-L. Thanks for reading. Happy New Year to all!

    • Jeff Luecke

      “I put a lot of stock in what you say, because we both have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.”

      Would Jesus advocate the killing of hundreds of thousands of people? Would Jesus advocate Newt’s idea of clandestine CIA operations to assassinate Iranian scientists? CRAP! If you’re a baby in the womb pro-lifers love you. But God help you if you’re a citizen going about your business in the Middle East. What ever happened to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”? Or how about “whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me”? Talk about hypocrisy!

      RON PAUL 2012!!!

  • James

    Amen! If Ron Paul has done anything, which is much…He exposed the Federal Reseve, the phony left/right paradigm, and the sold out media…Just by speaking the truth!
    We already won.
    Go Ron Paul!

  • Anonymous

    Saddened…I had been telling people about this conservative, Christian talk radio guy who seemed to have his head on  straight about God, family and country.  Guess I was wrong.  Don’t worry.  I won’t even bother to use up your airtime by listening anymore.  I’m sure you have many supporters who agree that things don’t need to change.  Newt is not for making things any better for our nation.  Newt is all about Newt and will be no better and very little different than Obama.  Oh but wait!  Obama will wipe the floor with him and as with McCain, we will see an Obama victory handed to him on a platter.  Thanks for your “help”.

    • DoctorElefant

      Even if Newt were to beat Obama in the general election, nothing would improve and the Democrats would take back Congress in 2 years and the White House in 4 years. We must get off this unsustainable and unaffordable path of bigger and bigger government. Neither Newt nor Obama could care less.

    • Anonymous

      “Newt is not for making things any better for our nation. Newt is all about Newt and will be no better and very little different than Obama” That is simply preposperous!! Don’t forget he is a 68 year old grandfather! Apparently you have kids and/or grandkids, how many grandparents do you know who really don’t care about their family’s future. You should be ashamed!!

  • Anonymous

    Wow, you surprised me. But this is a time when we need experience and competence. Sorry, folks, but Santorum is a lightweight and Paul is too much of a foreign policy wildcard. As of 7:22 on Friday evening, it’s Gingrich.

  • JScott

    Steve, I have an idea for the title of your next book… “We Just Got Fooled Again”

    • James

      Steve didn’t get fooled – those that follow and listen to certain personalities (being nice without naming names) got fooled. So don’t you gert fooled again as I sure won’t!

      • Henry Wilson

        Oh, let’s name names.

        Glenn Beck, he has nothing but contempt for Gingrich.

        Is it justified?  Well Glenn Beck has studied progressivism for quite some time now and he says that Gingrich is one.

        I hope that Steve took that as much in consideration as Huckabee’s endorsement.

        • Edward Smith
        • Ed Smith
          • Anonymous

            I heard it and I ignore it. Beck wants to pick a few things from Newt’s past, distort and exaggerate. Let’s do that to Beck…why would you listen to a manipulative alcoholic/drug addict who abandoned his wife and kids? Beck steals other peoples’ work and takes credit for it. Beck frightens his audience with predictions while hawking doomsday products. Beck’s behavior got him fired from Fox News. Beck is using Bachmann to attack Gingrich to clear the path for fellow Mormon Romney. 

          • slkramer

            some day you need to get your facts straight.

        • Anonymous

          Glenn Beck has endorsed Bachmann for president.

          • http://www.facebook.com/brandon.lancaster Brandon Lancaster

            Palin has a more favorability rating than Bachmann. + She needs to ask for forgiveness for being a compulsive liar.

          • Anonymous

            When has Bachmann lied?  She is an honest, Christian woman.  If you are revering to the Sorenson situation, it was proven today by several people, one being his former campaign manager, that he did leave for money.

          • Jnmeek58

            Honest christian woman huh? The same honest christian woman who praised Newt while introducing him to her constituents in her home district when she needed his support, then throws him under the bus when the timing was right during the last debate on Fox. Talk about character and trust issues?? Please….

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8zz5myJ_hs&feature=youtube_gdata_player

          • Anonymous

            Newt can’t run away from his own record.

        • Anonymous

          My guess is Glenn Beck is just using Bachmann to attack Gingrich in order for the fellow Morman, Romney, to win. The attacks by Beck on Gingrich have been full of lies and distortions – very manipulative – and totally ignoring the achievements Gingrich has made. 

    • Anonymous

      And subtitled, “And How I Lost All Credibility With My Fans & My Lord”

      • Anonymous

        Please be specific……how does Steve’s endorsement affect his credibility with our Lord and Savior?

        • Mikewest

          Steve CLEARLY failed to
          follow the specific guidelines as set forth by the 5 gold standards given by
          God thru Jethro in Exodus 18:21. Instead he used human logic and reasoning to
          chase after secondary “rabbit” issues instead of focusing on the “big game”, a
          person’s relationship with the lord. No honest Christian can say that prior to
          the convenience of this election cycle, Newt has ever produced any fruitful evidence
          that he has seriously been born again. ZERO!!! All this faulty logic is based
          out of a spirit of fear rather than peacefully focusing on the orders at hand.
          I feel sorry for Steve personally having been duped, but on the other hand, I’m
          thankful that our God does not really depend on us knuckleheads for raising and
          lowering leaders in power. If it’s HIS will that the Honorable Dr. Ron Paul is to
          be president, then he will be sworn in as planned. God will use our mistakes to
          the good.

      • Firstcorinthans1311

        I agree

    • profeluke

      I took the time to listen to Steve’s interviews with Tom Woods and it seemed that Steve at least understood some of the points Tom was making.  That he now endorses Newt, the absolute epitome of a corrupt politician, is beyond laughable.  It’s one thing to not know the history and think “hey, that fat guy in the debate seems to know what he’s talking about”.  But to have been paying attention for the last 20 years and feel like Newt will lead us in the right direction is insane.  

      The bible places importance in names.  “Newt” is a very apt name for him.  He is slithery like a salamander and cold blooded in his betrayals.  He shifts positions like a chameleon because he believes in nothing but himself.

      I didn’t think Steve would have the wherewithal to endorse Dr. Paul, but for him to come out and endorse his exact opposite is disturbing.

      • tz

        You can see the candidate’s record of principle, honor, and integrity.  Many of Dr. Paul’s 454-1 votes had Newt on the other side.  Instead of endorsing the person with the longest and largest track record of integrity, he endorsed someone who at best seems to have just converted a few months ago and claims he won’t compromise.  Counterfeit conservatives are everywhere.  And you have to be brutal to ask hard questions they can’t rehearse if you want to know if they are speaking from their heart or just reciting talking points.  Very few candidates give the same message at every speech.

        Yes, some just got fooled again.  Newt came on and said what his itching ears wanted you to have him say.  Esau sold his birthright over lunch, and lost the blessing.  Did he fast and pray for two weeks before this endorsement?

        Loss of the rule of law is deciding?  Newt already said he would arrest judges violating separation of powers.  The unconstitutional undeclared wars he would continue and expand.  Arrest without warrant.  Search without cause.  No Habeas Corpus or lawyer for you.  Torture.  Newt would shred every law and every term of the constitution to get to terrorists.  But in a dictatorship (speaker?) what is left?  Perhaps you can summon a demon from hell and sell your soul to him and he would end abortion.  At least it might actually happen.  You’ve sold your soul for empty promises.  Anyone can sign pledges.  Didn’t George W Bush promise?

  • Anonymous

    Love the halo, by the way.

  • Anonymous

    It’s good to see the Christian Warmongers upset over which Warmonger is better.  They all chant “God forgives” while hoping that whomever they nominate will shed blood in other Countries.  Their mantra is “Blessed are the Warmongers”.  
    Ron Paul 2012 and why?  Because just like my crazy grandfather he knew more about life than the greedy SOB’s that the media love.    

  • Anonymous

    Let’s put a serial adulterer and an adulteress in the white house!

    I think you just got fooled again.

    PS. Stop saying Ron Paul is naive on foreign policy.  Ron Paul served his country during war time.  Ron Paul is the most popular GOP candidate with the troops.

    As far as I can tell, you haven’t served or put the uniform on.  So I would say, you’re the one who is naive about foreign policy, not the veterans.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/William-Faust/697319623 William Faust

      No, it would be really cool. They could be introduced at State dinners as President [Slut] TARP and the First [Slut] Fannie.

      (had to clean that up)

  • http://twitter.com/Danamaniac Dan Doherty

     Expand Far too many people who make up the “Religious Right” in this country claim to be Christians but in reality, they reject any part of Christ’s teachings they don’t like. Their alligence lies not with the constitution, with human liberty, or even with Christ, it seems to lie only in war… what a sham… Oops, I meant “shame”. Meh, I was kind of right the first time.

    So much for being pro-family (Newt has made a mockery of marriage and the family,
    So much for being pro-constitution (Newt has spent his career evading and trampling on it),
    So much for being against corruption (Newt’s middle name),
    So much for being pro-life (on abortion, Newt has held conflicting views- not to mention his death penalty views for victimless and non-violent crimes, and his chicken-hawk murderous foreign policy fueled by bloodlust),
    So much for being pro religious liberty (Newt is only for the rights of Christians, he vehemently opposes allowing certain other abrhamic religious practice freely),
    So much for supporting principles over party (which Newt never does), So much for standing up to the establishment (of which Newt is a huge part),Well too bad you got fooled again Steve, by another Big Government Establishment Party Hack. If Newt wins the presidency (which we all know he will not and cannot), I’m sure four years from later you’ll be on the air wondering aloud where we went wrong, and why things are soo much worse.Ron Paul 2012. Not another phony.

  • mdl

    Sometimes Christians who are so judgemental embarrass me!

  • Anonymous

    If Newt is so transparent, as Deace claims, then why did Newt lie about his support of cap and trade during the debates? Why did he lie about his involvement with Freddie Mac during the debates? A candidate who is willing to stand in front of the American people and tell a bald-faced lie, is this what passes for transparency in the Deace household?

    You put all your brain cells together, you searched far and wide for the most noble and moral candidate, and the best you could come up with was Newt Gingrich? Are you serious?

  • DJW

    For those that look at Newts marriage problems…. I’m guessing alot of you read your Bibles(hopefully). What about David in the Old Testament? He committed adultery and was responsible for sending a man to his death. He repented AND was forgiven …he was greatly used of God. You can read about it in you Bible. I guess you’re free to choose the issue(s) that stop you from supporting a certain candidate….freedom of cjoice is great, isn’t it? 

  • PAMamaBear

    Very disappointing. I hear this all the time: abandoning the standard justified by some urgency but the bottom line is the same — electability factor and money. God forgive us for worshipping mammon. America is headed for communism if the Evangelical leadership are compromising His standard. Newt is not even a conservative.

  • Rlfoundation1

    Newt had lied to wife
    Today he cried for his mom
    Deace lips checks cashed

  • Anonymous

    What a disappointment!!  You have sold your soul to a wolf in sheep’s clothing.  Gingrich is a conservative when he feels like it.  And right now, he has co-opted the tea party talk to win.  He can not be trusted.  There is only one true conservative that can be trusted, is a proven fighter for our liberties, can beat Obama in any debate and doesn’t have any baggage to claim, Michele Bachmann.  You have settled, no one else should follow your example.  And if anyone thinks that Bachmann wasn’t telling the truth about that traitor Sorenson, think again, it has been proven today, that he was promised money to switch to Paul.  Bachmann is a person of her word, she can be trusted!

    • JenIA

      Agreed 100%!!! Bachmann is by far the best choice. Gingrich is not even an option, he cannot be trusted! Michele is the only one who has not had to say that she has changed her mind on a decision and then there is Santorum who endorsed Romney. Michele is a women of her word and can 100% be trusted!!!!

  • Anonymous

    Nothing will change in Washington with Newt there, he is a big government progressive, who has co-opted the tea party talk to win, he is a wolf in sheep’s clothing and not to be trusted!!

  • John

    Sadly is right. The whole thing is sad and you more than anyone knowes it: That is what is sad…not the superfulois  ad agency picture of an American, but the support of people who should know better. Good luck with Haliburton.

  • Anonymous

    That halo is scarey and let’s me know where you are coming from.  Very disappointed in this endorsement, wow have you missed the message and been fooled by a big government progressive that will not make any changes in Washington.

  • micawber

    “My new book”, “my radio program”, I “was a vocal proponent”.  One proud and arrogant man endorses another.  Nothing new here.

  • JenIA

    You wrote a book on where Christians went wrong in our country and you are endorsing Newt?! Something does not fit there

  • 4ACES

    Newt abandoned his children, wouldn’t pay to feed them until he was forced to by a judge and had to have the local baptist church take up a collection to feed them and pay their rent. Newt is not someone worthy of any office of honor.

  • http://www.facebook.com/rsownbey Shane Ownbey

    Newt is an accident waiting to happen. We have one shot and that is Gov. Romney. If you don’t see it by now, you might not . . . ever. He will lead and be effective on both sides of the aisle. Hang in there!

    • Anonymous

      If Newt is an accident waiting to happen, Romney is an accident that has already happened!

      • http://profiles.google.com/dpullen.allied David Pullen

        Everything Romney has touched and worked at has been a success, except when he ran against Ted Kennedy (and barely lost) or was up against McCain, and not quite ready for prime-time yet. And if you think “Romneycare” was a disaster…well, the people of MA wanted it…he didn’t force it on them like Obama has done. Romney says himself it’s not for every state, and certainly not a national program.

        Oh, but feel free to tell me where that “accident” happened….

        • Anonymous

          Everything? Including $50 abortions as a governor and oh don’t forget his signing marriage licenses for homosexual “marriages”. So you think the people of Mass wanted homosexual “marriage”? I don’t even want to hear that the courts “made” Romney do that.  And if you like the Boy Scouts, then why does Romney want them to have homosexuals as scout masters? Maybe you are right these wouldn’t be accidents, they are done on purpose which makes it worse.

    • http://profiles.google.com/dpullen.allied David Pullen

      Again, thanks Shane! Romney is a man of Character, with a capital C! Married 42 years to the same woman, 5 great sons…

      Oh…but he’s Mormon. Nevermind…but then Christian’s aren’t judgemental, right?

      Right??? 

      • Diana

        My dislike of Romney has NOTHING to do with the fact that he’s a Mormon.  It’s the fact that he’s a LIBERAL!  See: Romneycare, $50 abortions on demand, and the rest of his history in Mass.

    • william

      Romney is the Republican “establishment” candidate.
      He is the next in line after Dole, Bush I, Bush II and McCain. All of them pushed for the growth in the federal behemoth…Romney will gladly do the same!
      Can anyone list three conservative political accomplishments attained by Romney?
      Both Gingrich and Paul can list several.
      Think about it!

  • Saveamerica4u

    WOW!!!  Must not have even bothered to look into his record.  He is the WORST wolf in sheep’s clothing out of the entire field.  My golly Steve, you got the most fooled I could ever imagine.  He is a CFR man all the way…..unbelievable!

  • Anonymous

    I am so pleased to see you have endorsed Gingrich.  By the same token, I am shocked and disappointed
    to read some of the comments attached to this article.  The comments are vindictive and hateful and
    show none of the Christian love we are commanded to demonstrate.  I wonder if all these people lead perfect lives.  I would ask you to go back to the Bible and
    see what it says about forgiveness. 

    I have read Newt’s books and I watched his movies… he loves
    our Constitution and will defend it and America.  As Speaker he balanced the budget, brought us
    a GOP majority, reduced welfare and created 11 million jobs. Pretty impressive
    that he did that working with a liberal President.  If you have not read “A Nation Like No Other”
    or “Rediscovering God in America”  I
    highly recommend both before you further attack Newt. Once you have, we can
    have an intelligent discussion! 

    He is running to create a better America for his grand kids,
    and I will stand will stand with him for 8 years.  I am Christian woman, conservative, and
    believe in our Constitution and the legacy our Founding Fathers tried to leave
    us with.   

    Newt is the one candidate that I believe understands the
    threat to our Christian heritage and creeping Sharia law in our court systems.
    He will stand strong against both…and I want someone who will draw the line
    in the sand and defend it!

     

    • http://profiles.google.com/dpullen.allied David Pullen

      Oh, but standing up to illegal immigration? Eh…not so much…

      And the only sitting Speaker to be reprimanded by the House Ethics Committee and fined $300,000?? Eh…water under the bridge! Old news…(even though the only one ever!)

      Creating global warming ads with Nancy Pelosi? Eh…business…

      Lobbying for embryonic stem cell research? Eh…business, again…a guy’s gotta eat!

      Taking a $1.6 million payoff from Freddie Mac? Eh…business, again…BIG TIME!!!

      Sleeping with female staffer, while married, during Clinton’s sex scandal? Eh.. just a bit of playful fun…a guy’s gotta have some fun, right?

      Oh, and besides the fact he would be the FIRST and ONLY Presidential candidate who cheated on, and divorced, not one, but TWO wives…the guy’s a peach!

      A regular Georgia Peach!

      At least he isn’t a peanut farmer, right???

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/William-Faust/697319623 William Faust

        I think that you meant to write, “Sleeping FOR SIX YEARS with female staffer, while married, during Clinton’s sex scandal?”

    • Diana

      So if he’s so constitutional, how can he support an individual mandate?  Where is that authorized in the constitution?

      • Anonymous

        Gingrich never passed or voted for a mandate. He had spent years trying to find ways to work with our health care system and make it better. He did discuss a mandate, but contrary to Romney he never put it into place. Heritage also discussed a mandate, and both Heritage and Gingrich ruled it out as not working and not being acceptable. There is a difference between a citizen considering ideas and a Governor or President issuing mandates.

  • Phi

    The one that is feared by those I despise is my choice as well.  GO NEWT!

  • Jeff Luecke

    Steve, Steve, Steve…what did you do? For decades the pendulum has swung…left, right, Democrat, Republican. Power changes hands in the oval office and in the halls of congress. And the government grows. Our liberties dwindle. Everyone’s got a “plan”. Newt’s got A LOT of plans! Why do people think one guy’s or one think tank’s or one party’s “plan” can fix anything? Only liberty and the free market will bring peace and prosperity. Government intervention at home and abroad are bad, bad, bad. RON PAUL 2012!!!

    • Henry Wilson

      Jeff you are wrong.

      The pendulum has not  swung right since Reagan (and even then domestically not that right).  Both the Republican and Democrat establishments are progressives.

      Newt unfortunately is part of that establishment.  I am disappointed in Steve’s choice even though I respect that he had the courage to give this endorsement even knowing the blowback he would get.

  • Anonymous

    Steve, You already knew what kind of backlash you would get and yet you went ahead with it because you believed it was the right thing to do. And I agree with it and believe that in the end – after Gingrich is elected – that he will do what he has been saying he would do and it won’t be until then that people will fully understand the stance you are taking. Until then, hold on to your hat…

  • Sisboombah

    “One of those candidates is Ron Paul, but his foreign policy is naive at best and reckless at worst.”

    Well gee, thanks for at least the consideration, but from a Christian perspective, how do you justify a Gingrich foreign policy which would advocate proactive killing of foreigners based on the irrational fear that they would attack is first?

    If this is Christianity, I’m going to start shopping for another religion.

    • Sisboombah

      Sorry – meant “attack us”, not “is”.

  • Anonymous

    Steve, 2 things I have against Newt. DeeDee Scozzafozza (And he blasted Palin for supporting Hoffman). Newt called Ryan’s plan “right-wing social engineering”. As a tea partier, Newt has not apoligized for either and he has been pandering all along. He will not win Iowa and he will not get the nomination.

  • Anonymous

    Folks, there is one sure fire option to beat obama, #VoteRogue, Caucus for Palin!

    • Anonymous

      Why caucus for someone who has said they aren’t running in Iowa? What’s the point?

  • James

    What’s the point in beating your opponent if the replacement is the same? Sure the rhetoric is different but the voting record and past statements are pretty much the same. Welcome to a bush 4th term if Newt wins, Obama is Bushes 3rd term!
    Don’t get what what? O yeah fooled again…..Listeners wakes up – Jesus is a prince of peace, this guy will support a pro abortionaist and anti-constutionalist as long they that will bomb and cause war. Why not just support Obama he’s stepped it up a notch continuing Bushes war machine.
    Remember Pat Robertson – supporting Rudy Gulianni? See the trend…

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Nancy-Smith/100001914473514 Nancy Smith

    Steve, I have to say that I am very disappointed in your decision.  I think you are misjudging Ron Paul’s foreign policy.  MIchael Scheuer, a veteran of the CIA for 22 years and the CIA’s Chief of the bin Laden unit, has tonight, endorsed Ron Paul for his foreign policy.  You can read it, here, sir.  
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/content.php?1260-Michael-Scheuer-endorses-Ron-Paul-and-his-foreign-policy-Article

    • Anonymous

      Thanks, Nancy.  I included the same link as well in my earlier post.  If people truly care about what our foreign policy is actually effectuating in N. Africa and the Middle East, they’ll read Michael’s take on this and give Paul a second thought if foreign policy was their only hang up.  It’s an excellent read. 

    • neocontrotsky

      Until a great deal of people on the right wake up and realize that there is a link between progressives, war, and the state expanding its power and size, we will never get the government under control.  And if there aren’t some actual cuts made soon, it won’t really matter what sort of military we want because we won’t be able to afford it. 

  • Chalkart

    I appreciate
    the stand you are taking even though you knew ahead of time the thrashing you
    would likely endure. Any of the candidates would be superior to Obama and
    I respect each person’s rationale for supporting whoever they want. My real horse is in the stable- so I have to choose
    from those left on the track if I am going to cast my one little vote. I am
    certain that we all want basically the same thing for America, but human beings
    are naturally going to disagree on “who” could best lead the nation down the
    road towards the real “hope and change” that is needed.”Newt people”
    have learned to have a very thick skin
    because of the butchering he is taking in the
    media. I heard him in person give a lengthy “confessional” of sorts at a
    conference in 2010. He seemed very sincere to me. People that I know who know
    him very well claim he is not the same Newt of years ago. These are people I
    know very well–and they know him very well.But already, some of the
    same characters are after Newt that relentlessly attacked Huckabee. Glenn Beck,
    Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, Michelle Malkin, Mark Levin, George Will, Dick
    Army, and Karl Rove among scores of others. It is clear the GOP establishment
    does not want Newt. The social media is
    full of anti-Newt stuff….he’s not pro-life…he voted for the Brady Bill…he
    did this – he didn’t do that. These things are false but there are going to be
    negative things that are true. The man is 68 years old, he has a long and
    imperfect past to be dissected and put under the microscope.However-
    this is my answer to all of that. I don’t care. If people want to split hairs
    about how pro-life Newt is compared to another
    candidate-or if someone else wants to tout their candidate as being more
    “Biblical” than Newt— I don’t care.”Christians” beating each other
    over their heads with their Bibles about how their candidate is more “Biblical”
    or “pure” is pathetic and sickening, not to mention a hideous testimony.
    Candidates must be vetted obviously- but I for one am not going to join the
    throngs of people going for the gold medal in the “Pharisee Olympics” against
    Newt Gingrich while Romney has a good laugh about
    the spectacle that will ensure his nomination.
    Those who fear a Romney nomination the most appear to be in the process of
    unintentionally bringing about that very
    result.

    We are facing extinction as a nation with Obama at
    the controls 4 more years. Without Huckabee—it looks to me Newt is our best
    hope in stopping Obama. It may not work – I know that. Obama may get back in
    anyway–but I will do my little part in trying to stop him. And my “little part”
    is not going to include going down the self righteous holier than thou “purity
    road” behind a candidate that has little to no chance at the nomination (or even
    if they could secure the nomination by some wild stretch of the
    imagination)—-could not match up against Obama. Romney may end up with the
    nomination or even one of the other candidates, who knows?If it doesn’t
    work–it doesn’t work- and maybe Mike Huckabee
    will take another look in 2016. But for now—I am comfortable in
    supporting the candidate that appears best equipped to accomplish what needs to
    be accomplished, even though all of the candidates are flawed, imperfect human
    beings, just like me.

    In the end—I must remind myself that
    this is all just human politics/government which is not going to “save the
    country” anyway. Sure– we must be informed and do our civic duty in letting our
    voices be heard through the political process we enjoy– but God is ultimately
    in control.The cause of Christ can’t be expanded by social intimidation
    any more than by government decree. Ours is a spiritual warfare against human
    ideologies that are set up against God and can only be conquered with the Word
    of God. As we strive to elect persons who uphold traditional values, remember,
    only the Gospel truly changes lives from the inside out. The Lord came to rescue
    the lost, not “capture the culture.”

  • stan

    LOL I can’t believe this guy wrote a book called “We won’t get fooled again!”. HA! and then endorses one of biggest conmen  of our times. 

    • James

      He is laughing is is the listners that have been fooled again and again – that is why the abortion issue has not been resolved.

      • Anonymous

        If we follow what Newt says about the courts, we can solve the abortion issue once and for all.

        • John Hunter

          If Newt will follow THRU with what he says.

          Politicians SAY a lot of things.

          But then most often DO the exact opposite.

          Scott Brown called that the difference between “Campaign Mode” and actually governing.

          With Politicians you just can’t trust what they say. Somehow there must be some independent evidence that they will follow THRU.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1529457496 Deborah Mulholand

    Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney both change their positions so much it’s giving me whiplash. I don’t think either one of them can defeat Pres. Obama, because they’ve held so many of President Obama’s favorite, cherished positions. They both loved the “Individual Mandate” which is anathema to conservatives and what ObamaCare was based on. Just because Newt is smart (or full of himself) doesn’t mean he’ll bring out conservative voters. If people thinking nominating moderates like Newt or Romney will defeat Obama, they’ll be as sadly mistaken as they were when they pushed moderate John McCain on us. Pres. Obama is praying that he gets to go up against Newt/Romney. That will be icing on the cake for him. The only person who had the guts to call Pres. Obama out on his Gangster Government were Michael Barone of the Washington Examiner and Michele Bachmann. Pres. Obama had the gall to fire GM CEO Rick Wagoner and then send FedExes to hundreds of GM dealers asking them to close their 100 year old businesses within 3 days and send their customer lists to other dealerships. I did not hear one other person in America mention this except for Michele Bachmann. 
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thR-lVuztIY

    • JenIA

      Michele Bachmann….the best choice!!!!!!!

  • HonoluluHawk

    I wonder if you got your slogan mixed up. Is it now 1. Make money 2. Tell the truth. 3 . Fear God?

  • Diana

    I used to appreciate you, Steve for your willingness to at least bring up the fact that REPUBLICANS SUCK TOO!! 

    That said, I’m done with you Steve after this.  You claims to want
    anti-establishment statesmen versus politicians, but you endorse the
    ultimate politician, and part of the Republican Establishment.  Steve,
    you just got fooled again.

  • Rsgeiger

    the idea that Newt is not a conservative is sily. look at his legislative record, not the rantings of glenn beck. Newt is by far the best candidate. Vote Newt

    • slkramer

      Looking at Newt’s legislative record, we see that Speaker Newt in 1995 stymied John Kasich’s efforts to impose user fees on Fannie & Freddie to equalize the financial playing field, and was AWOL in the attempt to reform Fannie & Freddie in 2000s.
       

  • Anonymous

    Steve is a mentor and he is completely trustworthy.  Would prefer Michelle Bachmann but will go with Newt if it is between Romney and Newt….definately Newt.

    • JenIA

      Stick with Bachmann!!!! She is not out of it yet and way better than the rest!!!!

      • slkramer

        Bachmann is way ahead of Newt. Consistent conservative who has maintained her integrity. Problem with Newt is 6 months later he’ll have different ideas, and show us his FDR imitation.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Cody-D-Darr/1286912441 Cody D Darr

    I never expected you to make the pragmatic choice Steve. All
    I can say is I hope he loses, and soundly because I for one do not want fooled
    again, especially by a guy that has arguably fooled us before. I understand why
    you don’t like Ron Paul’s foreign policy, it is because you fear they will kill
    us if we don’t kill them first. Well… 1 John 4: 18

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Kris-Smith/100000135417264 Kris Smith

    Well there’s a wasted endorsement. Sorry if this offends anyone.

  • Henry Wilson

    Steve,

    On one side I want to say I have much respect for you regarding announcing your decision despite knowing how unpopular it would be.  This shows you as a man of integrity.

    But men of integrity aren’t always men of wisdom.  And the mistake I believe you are making is believing that Newt, if elected, would carry out what he said he would in regards specifically to abortion.

    I do wonder how much Huckabee’s endorsement has swayed you.  I never really understood your respect for the man except for being not Romney.  Huckabee got some policemen killed because he was lenient on  a criminal’s sentence.

    You have seemed to lack discernment throughout this process.  You never expressed the amount of contempt for Rick Perry that creep deserves and now you are trusting that Gingrich will “walk the walk”?  We saw him do completely the opposite in the past.

    But at the end of the day I do believe you have thought about this deeply and if you actually believe the guy then I will just have to agree to disagree.

    By the way, you worry about some of the foreign policies Ron Paul has espoused, and I understand where you are coming from there, but how about some of the Progressive Policies that Gingrich has talked about over the years?  He even called himself “Wilsonian” at one point.

    Steve I respect you, but you have been fooled. And you will be held accountable, especially if when Gingrich gets past Iowa he moves to the Left as would ultimately happen (and I am never wrong about such things).

  • Jason Ord Fradd

    Personally, I am getting very tired of people claiming Ron Paul’s foreign policy is “naive” or “reckless”. My entire family has a long tradition in the military and dating back over 150 years supporting the same policies as Dr. Paul. Starting with my 4x Great Grandfather Major General Edward Ord (whom Fort Ord in California was named after), to my grandpa who was in the Battle of the Bulge, a POW, and later became an intelligence officer. We all have the same general foreign policy beliefs and I think they still stand true to this day. It is something I am proud of from my heritage.

    For people to call the policies I believe in “naive” and “reckless” when I’m virtually certain I have studied the issues and policies relating to our foreign policy more than 99%+ of Americans is frankly an insult.
    It is so frustrating on many levels. First, many people not knowing their history. Second, a lot of people not looking forward and seeing the ramifications of our actions. “Blowback” if you will.

    If people want to debate foreign policy, I am all for that. But to just say Ron Paul’s policies and essentially the policies I agree with are “naive” and/or “reckless” isn’t productive discourse.

    • neocontrotsky

      What would the CIA head of the Bin Laden unit know about foreign policy compared to neo-con talk radio/tv types like Hannity and O’Reilly who study their teleprompters every day?

      What I also like is how often evangelicals advocate going back to what the Founding Fathers said, yet they completely ignore what was said about foreign policy.  If the argument is then “well, times are different now, so we have to intervene abroad like Wilson did” — how is that any different from what the left argues about every aspect of the constitution, especially things like the Second Amendment?

      • Steamroller47

        Could the fact that the founding fathers used WOODEN BOATS to get back and forth to Europe have anything to do with slightly updated view of today’s foreign policy?

        Calling Paul’s FP view as “naive” is a kind way of saying he is actually pretty stupid on the subject. 

        • Boaz

          Steamroller47, what would you say to Michael Scheuer, formet chief of the CIA bin laden unit and Robert David Steele, who was the second-ranking civilian of the US Marine Corps Intelligence Unit?  Both of them endorsed Ron Paul today, specifically because of his foreign policy stance.  Are they naive and stupid?  Admittedly, Ron Paul sounded too dovish to me as well, initially.  But, the more I study up on this, the more I realize how right he is.  Please read Robert Pape (or watch some of his videos) and let me know if you still feel the same way.  

          We dealt with the Russians when they had ten of thousands of missiles pointed right at us.  

          I think it’s fair to ding Ron Paul for coming across too much as a peacenik than he actually is. He’s not a pacifist, he just believe in the Just War Theory of not starting wars preemptively.  If we do encounter threats, President Paul would go before the congress as the constitution dictates, get a declaration, kick some serious butt, and then come home.  

          We’ve got to stop getting involved with nation building, otherwise we get crushed under this mountain of debt (as the Russians did).  

          Please feel free to pick this argument apart.  I’d love to hear other opinions and what you think we should be doing, if not the above.  

        • neocontrotsky

          We didn’t have the internet or AR15s as well in the time of the Founding Fathers.  Interesting to see you agreeing with the logic of far left types who view the First and Second Amendment as outdated.   

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Nancy-Smith/100001914473514 Nancy Smith

          Steamroller, do you realize Michael Scheuer, a 22 year veteran of the CIA and former Chief of the CIA’s bin Laden unit, has endorsed Ron Paul’s foreign policy?    Please read this:  
          http://lewrockwell.com/scheuer/scheuer12.1.html

    • KW64

      Ron Paul says Iran getting a nuclear weapon is none of our business. Sadly, I think they would make it our business by blackmailing their neighbors and by giving nukes to Hezbollah to launch into Israel or smuggle into the US to strike us here. These guys start every public occasion by chanting death to America. To me this is a clue we should not ignore. Once they have weaponized nukes, they can shut down the oil lanes and threaten to sink any fleet sent to reopen them. They want skyhigh oil prices that will sink us economically and they are willing to intimidate countries like Saudi Arabia would would tray to keep prices and availability stable.

      • Boaz

        KW64, it’s true that some radicals in Iran say ridiculous things about Israel (and the US).  We have to ask why they feel this way towards us.  The answer is not because we’re rich, free, etc.  If that were the case, then why has it only started in he last 50-60 years and why don’t they say those things about other countries, like Switzerland, Sweden, etc?  These countries are just as rich and free as we are.  

        No, the answer has to be due to the fact that we have been exerting ourselves in the middle east since the early 1950’s.  We have to come to grips with this.

        Correct me if I’m wrong, but if I follow your logic, you’re saying that we should start a war to prevent a war.  That doesn’t make sense.  Even enforcing sanctions on them would be a disaster.  Sanctions on Iraq resulted in hundred of thousands of deaths.  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions)

        Most of us on this forum are as pro life as one can be, and I think we need remember that being pro life means more than protecting unborn kiddos, it also means protecting all life, not matter what country they’re from.  

        If you have any interest in understanding why people in the middle east are motivated to kill us, then please watch Robert Pape and his research called ‘Dying to Win.’  Here is a link on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4HnIyClHEM

        • Bfh

          Oy vei,

          Islam has been waging jihad before the formation of both America and Israel. Islamists do not need America or Israel to follow the doctrines of the Koran, it just makes it that much more fun and challenging. It’s obvious why the existence of Israel has inflamed them, and they do not go after Sweden or Switzerland because they didn’t participate in the defeat of Hitler. That was largely Europe and the United States, the current targets of their insane terror. Incidentally, they are not blowing up Scandinavia, they are absorbing it through emigration and birthing.

          Islam was an ally of Hitler, fighting side by side with the Nazis. Hitler met with the Mufti many times. Muslims were used, much as they are today, as guerilla insurgents to weaken countries in order to reestablish totalitarian government.

          People say Ron Paul is naive. Hardly. He knows exactly what his policies will achieve. He is an anti-Zionist who resents the existence of Israel and blames them for Islamic terror.
          His interview on the steps of the capitol where he likened the Palestinians to people in concentration camps was an utterance like no other presidential candidate has ever made. It was despicable in light of the horrors European Jews suffered in actual concentration camps. Paul chose that phrase carefully. He must have, you would have to be immeasurably stupid to make that statement. He’s not that stupid, he’s that evil.
          People see the quivering milquetoast and see a kind man. His countenance belies the abject bigotry  and disdain in his heart.
          He says he fully understands the suicide bombings, calling them refugees. Palestinians have been designated refugees by the UN for decades, while every other refugee group has found a home. Their original refugee numbers are dwarfed by their current population. This has never happened in the history of the planet. The UN has kept refugee status as a political point. The Palestinians can simply turn around and the entire world is behind them. They choose to look toward the tiny strip of Israel, claiming this land is theirs. The original refugees left Israel at the behest of Arabs, not Israelis. They were told to leave while the Arabs were to extinguish the Jews in a war. The Israelis beat them back, and it has stung ever since. The refugees were Arab’s own making, not Israeli’s.

          Ron Paul also stated he wouldn’t have taken up arms to save the Jews during the holocaust.
          I choose not to believe that you’ve heard these interviews and still have this glorified opinion of Ron Paul. I’m not even a Christian in good standing any longer and I still have my compass intact compared to “Christians” who support Ron Paul.

          • neocontrotsky

            The same exact Wilsonian intervention we currently engage in is precisely what caused WW2 to happen and for Hitler to rise to power.  Your argument is just like when the left states that health care costs are soaring, so we need more government intervention — neglecting to mention that it was government intervention that caused the prices to skyrocket in the first place.

            The ignorance of those who blindly listen to neo-con talk radio types saying 911 happened because we have shopping malls, women can vote, and the ever popular “they hate us for our freedom” is what is truly bigoted, ignorant, and naive.   It is just as bad as the Wilsonian idea that we can create secular democracy in middle eastern areas, then act surprised when they vote for muslim radical types to be in charge.

            Here is what an actual expert — the former CIA head on Bin Laden — not someone reading a teleprompter for Foxnews, has to say about the issue:

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBtXmN2ZoEw

          • neocontrotsky

            I just noticed this point:

            “Islam was an ally of Hitler, fighting side by side with the Nazis.
            Hitler met with the Mufti many times. Muslims were used, much as they
            are today, as guerilla insurgents to weaken countries in order to
            reestablish totalitarian government.”

            You mean like how we did the same thing against the Soviets?  If your argument is that since some members of Islam sided with the Nazis in WW2 that makes them evil, what does that make us since we sided with them in the 1980s against the Soviets?  Or how we provide foreign aid to Pakistan, Egypt, Saudia Arabia (where most of the 911 hijackers came from, btw), etc? 

      • Jason Ord Fradd

        KW64: This is going to be a very long post, so I apologize in advance. I appreciate you bringing up some points and truly talking about policy rather than resorting to insults. I’ll try to address these issues you mention

        My intention here is first to do my best to inform some people to see some past examples of history many probably aren’t aware. Also, if there are any undecideds out there, I hope for them to at least see the perspective where I come from and the base of Ron Paul’s foreign policy with regard to Iran. I could go into a lot more about other Countries or policies, but I’ll focus strictly on Iran because that was your post.I think we have to look at it from a perspective of what have we done in the past to get to the situation we are current in, what are we doing now, and what should we do in the future.

        In our foreign policy in the past we have done the following things which Ron Paul would not have done that at least in part created our current relations with Iran.

        * Aided in overthrowing a democratically elected leader, Prime Minister Mossadegh in 1953. We essentially replaced him with a authoritarian dictator that was much worse to the Iranian citizens.
        * In 1967 the United States sold Iran its first nuclear reactor – starting its nuclear program. This was started from Eisenhower’s initiative of “Atoms for Peace”
        * We sided with Saddam Hussein and Iraq in the Iran/Iraq war in the 1980’s. Supplying him with chemical weapons such as mustard gas that they used in warfare. (I think we should have just stayed out of it)
        * The Iran/Contra Scandal
        * A foreign subsidiary of Haliburton sold Iran nuclear technology from 2005 to 2008. This was even discussed in a US House committee.
        * George W. Bush did not allow Israel to take out Iran’s nuclear facilities in 2008 when Israel approached him for “permission”

        Now to the current activity. We currently have sanctions in place and the Senate just passed this month sanctions dealing with Iran’s central bank that bans the central bank from US financial system and anybody who does business with it. If this was done against the United States it would be considered an act of war. This relates to your comment about Iran shutting down the Strait of Hormuz. Iran has said they would do this in retaliation if the United States did in fact put this sanction in place.

        Additional current activity, which I actually completely agree with is the covert operations going on in Iran. Some of Iran’s top nuclear scientists have been killed/assassinated and there have been some explosions in their nuclear facilities likely attributed to covert actions. This, I completely agree with if the threat was deemed as being legitimate and it appears so. By doing this, the United States (along with covert operations from Israel) have definitely setback the Iranian nuclear program.

        What to do in the future? I think to continue the covert operations like mentioned above is vital. The best solution would be to use these assets of ours to evaluate the intentions of Iran’s nuclear facilities and if in fact they are a threat, to dismantle them and set them back via covert operations. This essentially would eliminate or substantially lower the capability of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon, most likely not result in a lot of bloodshed, wouldn’t effect trade or the closing of the Strait of Hormuz, and wouldn’t negatively effect the average everyday citizen of Iran that is apathetic about world affairs like sanctions would do. In addition, it wouldn’t halt the current growth of the uprising of Iran’s citizens against Ahmadinijad (spelling) and the Mullah’s. If there is a large presence of US force shown, it would cause the country to group together and rekindle their support of the current administration, halting any progress that has been made.

        Other things to note based on your comments. I’m not trying to be mean here, but all of your comments related to a “what if” scenario which I think is productive in one manner to look at all possible problems, but also leads to unending possibilities. What if I was 6’8″ tall, I could have had a shot at playing in the NBA. But I’ll try to address each of your concerns.

        You expressed concern of the smuggling of a nuclear weapon. First, I believe my policy above using covert operations would avoid Iran even having a nuclear weapon. However, lets assume they somehow do get one. Even though IAEA reports and other sources show their nuclear material currently is at the state of generating power, not a weapon. Ron Paul’s policy is to bring a large portion of the troops home and secure our border rather than trying to secure the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan (not to mention several other countries). I believe this is vital and I think it is important to do whether Iran obtains a nuclear weapon or not.

        You mentioned they chant “death to america” and all sorts of other violent related things. I will be the first to admit that the leaders of Iran are despicable people and they don’t hold the same values we do. I will say, however, that a common repeated phrase (especially by the Bachmann campaign) is completely untrue. That statement is “wipe Isreal off the map”. Ahmadinijad never said that actually, it was a misinterpretation. The actual quote is “The regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time”. Which relates to what Iran feels is the current Zionist leaders of Israel. Please don’t get me wrong, because I don’t favor Ahmadinijad one bit, but it is important to note that he didn’t say that. Michele Bachmann makes some wild claims that Ahmadinijad has said he is going to “wipe Israel off the map and wants to attack the United States next with an atomic weapon” (paraphrasing, but very close). Her logic is completely flawed. Iran has always stated they are only pursuing nuclear energy purposes only, so how could they say that and also say they are going to use a nuclear weapon against the United States. It doesn’t make sense.

        One thing that I find interesting is that in Iran, they have the largest population of Jews of ANY Muslim country. They actually live pretty normal lives there actually. That is hardly a country that shows absolute hatred toward Jewish people. Not that Iran is any bastion of freedom by any means and they definitely oppress their people (especially women), but put that in perspective for a second. Iran has the largest population of Jews of any Muslim country.

        You mentioned closing down the Strait of Hormuz and oil prices rising and making it not affordable here in the United States. As I mentioned earlier, they are saying they are going to “shut down” the Strait of Hormuz (presumably at is narrowest 2 mile width) IF the United States follows through with its sanctions on its Central Bank. That is in retaliation to the United States’ action when the covert operations are currently doing the job. If we place those sanctions on them and they shut down the Strait of Hormuz, you are correct that oil prices would increase. That would be strictly our decision whether it is worth it or not.

        Look at it from their perspective. We had a drone flying over their country that ended up on their ground and we put some (and plan to put more) strict sanctions on them. This is simply an act of war. If someone did that to us we would certainly believe so. We would retaliate. So, if we continue to place sanctions and fly drones over we most likely will see retaliation. And that WILL mean an increase in oil prices like you mention. The Ron Paul policy (along with many other Republican candidates) is to not be so dependent on foreign oil and this is the correct position. However, I would rather be able to continue covert operations to dismantle Iran’s nuclear facilities and keep the region more stable than put sanction on that would not allow gas/oil from or into Iran. This will allow us the time to develop other energy options & drilling here in the United States. Our other position that the other Republican candidates support do not give us time.

        I won’t even begin to start a discussion about how Russia and China are primarily siding with Iran. That is definitely a hornets nest I don’t want to stir up.

        These are Ron Paul’s positions and I completely agree with them.

        I sincerely hope you had the opportunity to read this. If you would like me to show any sources I would be happy to do so, but I was just going by memory here so I didn’t use any links. If you a different position on anything I’ve written I’d be happy to hear it. I’m certainly not the smartest guy around, but I do try to understand these issues the best I can.

        • Bigfurhat Mail

          You are not stating Ron Paul’s positions accurately. Ron Paul is not in favor of covert operations, he has denounced the use of drones and the CIA.
          Ron Paul’s policies will likely result in WWIII.

          • Anonymous

            To be honest, when I come to a long long post, I can assume it is a Ron Paul follower and I bump past it.

          • Jason Ord Fradd

            Thanks for your honesty. But I think its sad you aren’t really interested in discussing policy. I’ll at least listen to what others have to say. I might learn something. You might too if you’d read my post(s) above.

          • Anonymous

            I have read Ron Paul’s followers for months and months – they are pretty much all the same. No offense to you, but I am not going to waste my time with reading the same ole same ole.

          • Anonymous

            You can’t handle the truth?

          • Jason Ord Fradd

            Where in my post did I support the use of drones? I stated they were being used, but never favored them or said that Ron Paul favored them. There is a LOT more to covert operations than just the CIA. Out of all of my long post, that is the only thing you have to say? That is his policies will result in WWIII? And you have nothing to back it up.

            I’d venture to say the policies that most of the other Republican candidates propose are far, far more likely to result in WWIII rather than Ron Paul’s. I can’t believe you’d even make that comment. I’d love to hear your rationale on that.

            Pushing Iran with sanctions and attacking it militarily, will likely end up with Russia and China supporting Iran. And yes, that would be a disaster.

            I mean come on, the Mossad Chief says: 
            Nuclear Iran not necessarily existential threat to Israel. 
            Tamir Pardo says Israel using various means to foil Iran’s nuclear program, but if Iran actually obtained nuclear weapons, it would not mean destruction of Israel. http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/mossad-chief-nuclear-iran-not-necessarily-existential-threat-to-israel-1.404227
            So the head guy of one of (if not the) best Intelligence/Special Ops groups the World has ever known says it’s not a big threat to Israel even IF they get a Nuclear weapon. And here you are claiming it is going to be WWIII if Ron Paul’s policies were enacted? 

            Ron Paul was one of the very few Congressman that didn’t condemn Israel in the 1980’s when it took out Iraq’s nuclear facility. The vast, vast majority of other Republicans denounced Israel. George W. Bush in 2008 wouldn’t allow Israel to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. He wouldn’t even give them the airspace to use! Ron Paul would be different on both of these positions and let Israel defend herself and not give up its sovereignty. 

            Israel seems to be doing a fine job right now protecting itself regarding Iran along with some help from US covert operations.

            Anything else I see as escalating the hostilities and causing more harm than good (possibly leading to a large scale war).

    • Anonymous

      Media want to go negative all the time on people that support Ron Paul but people that don’t like Ron Paul are more vicious and vale on their comments than any other candidate I ever seen. Even the conservative media are just as vicious and vale. I never heard them call even Obama a kook or a crackpot but Ron Paul it is ok to call him ever name in the book! They can’t on just disagreeing with his polices no they have to demonize the hell out of him and his SUPPORTORS!!!

  • personhoodco

    A couple of months back, you leaked sleaze on Herman Cain, & now you endorse Newt Gingrich.  Good one brother

  • neocontrotsky

    Endorsements like this are why:

    (1)  The GOP fake conservatives take the evangelical votes for granted just as the Democrats do the black vote

    (2)  The GOP fake conservatives who dominate the party never actually change anything once in power

    It reminds me a lot of the battered wife/girlfriend who tells her friends:  “this time it is different — he promised he has changed!” 

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Nancy-Smith/100001914473514 Nancy Smith

    Matthew 7:12 “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.”
    Do we really believe this?  Because if we do and Michael Scheuer, a 22 year veteran with the CIA and former Chief of the CIA’s bin Laden unit is correct when he says the following, I guess we’d better hope they don’t have anything in the Koran similar to the verse in Matthew, above. Or, that they don’t adhere to it any better than we apparently do.
    “Indeed, Washington, Tel Aviv, and London are already conducting a lethal, covert-action war inside Iran which is killing Iranian nuclear scientists and destroying nuclear-related facilities, as well as trying to goad Tehran into reacting with violence and thereby give the West a casus belli.”http://www.ronpaulforums.com/content.php?1260-Michael-Scheuer-endorses-Ron-Paul-and-his-foreign-policy-Article George Washington is very clear about the foreign policy that he believed our country should have to stay free, prosperous and sovereign.  It is this foreign policy of our Founders, Mr. Deace, that you say you think is “dangerous and naive”.  Yet, it is the foreign policy that seems to align with Christ’s word.http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

  • Anonymous

    Michele Bachmann has been the obvious choice from the beginning.

    I understand your reasoning Steve, really I do. But I sincerely believe that you do not understand Newt’s reasoning for taking this stand. It isn’t just about what Newt supports, but why he supports it. Same reason he supported:

    Fairness Doctrine
    Amnesty
    Individual Mandate
    Global Warming/Carbon caps
    NAFTA, GATT, WTO
    TARP
    Dept of Education
    Adding Prescription Drugs to Medicare
    Etc, Etc, Etc…

    His support is for the power of the GOP, not the principles of conservatism, respect for the Constitution and the rule of law. Newt = McCain

    Maybe you should stop complaining about Billy Graham’s endorsement of Rudy in ’08 now. Just a suggestion.

    Congratulations for ending your decision process, I know it has been difficult for you. Take care of yourself and have a Happy New Year.

    • JenIA

      Michele Bachmann = best choice by far!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • panicinfunland

    What the fuck is a Steve Deace

  • Caspian

    The absolute worst candidate of all of them.  By a long shot.  That’s really disappointing, Steve.  Sorry, but the only thing I can do is no longer listen.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1247616156 Jared Mills

    I totally support you Deace in this endorsement and thank you for giving your reasoning behind this. I know it wasn’t an easy choice from listening to your show and seeing your posts on FB. Don’t let the haters get to you (though I don’t think you’ll have too much of a problem with that lol).

    • Anonymous

      No haters here, just rational people who understand that Ron Paul is the only one who truly respects the Rule of Law.

  • Radman1

    I really liked you steve but now Im not so sure Obama Media will distroy Newt and they have a lot of ammo Michele Bachmann has the Back bone to get the job done and maybe ask newt if he would like the VP. job

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Stephen-Luftschein/1184131299 Stephen Luftschein

    In every way, Newt is the right choice.  Frankly, I’m stunned that there is even a question.  There is only one candidate who has actually DONE all the things conservatives claim to want – reduce entitlements, balance the budget, cut taxes, and understand America’s role in the world.

    I may respect Rick Santorum, however, he voted for the Prescription drug program, for no child left behind, etc.  He supported ALL of Bush’s big government programs.  AND he followed Newt, while Newt led in the ’90’s.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Cody-D-Darr/1286912441 Cody D Darr

      Where do you think all this passion and activism is
      coming from? From those angered by the establishment. Newt IS the
      establishment. I could have understood Bachmann or Santorum…but only those
      two or Dr. Paul have any chance of capturing the spirit of this movement against
      the establishment. Because they are the only ones that are not the
      establishment…

  • Owen

    Dude, that picture is creeping me out a bit. A little Newt Age and sac relig, no?

  • RRG

    -Another administrative oversight: Folks at “Iowans for Newt” apparently need to campaign as hard to get spelling in schools as they do to get prayer in schools. Here’s an email they sent out the other day:“Hello All!“We are looking for volunteers to help Newt win the Iowa Caucasus!!!“We are in need of anyone who can make phone calls to other Iowans on behalf of his campaign in the evenings between 5pm and 8pm every night through the Iowa Caucasus. The phone calls will be made at the Campaign office in Urbandale.”-
    FAIL

  • Pat

    i’ve never listened to your program sir but I admire your honesty – by the comments of your listeners you’ve probably alienated some of them by your bold comments. I believe people like you and Speaker Gingrich value honor, duty and country over popularity and ego. I applaud you sir and your endorsement – Speaker Gingrich and President Clinton were able to govern effectively because they both understood they were Constitution Officers and their duty for the American people rose above any partisanship – i think by doing that the American people won. No president will get 100% of anything they want – they know that – so BIG PLANS, BIG IDEAS, and BIG CONFIDENCE will get more than timidity or stubborness.

    For  the Paul supporters it appears you would rather have your guy win the whitehouse just to occupy it but not to accomplish anything – i guess your slogan would be vote for me if you like gridlock or 4 years and wasted payroll because i can’t seem to get anything passed.

    For the Romney supporters your slogan should be Vote for me i’ve been dreaming on being a president all my life and have said ANYthing to make that dream a reality.

  • Glenda

    You are a wise man, and the reasons you state for voting for Newt are filled with common sense.  Thank you for taking a stand and speaking out.  I wish more ‘leaders’ would.

  • Mirand Sharma

    Steve, you support for Newt is disgraceful.  Not once in your analysis did you mention the Constitution or Liberty.  You would do yourself a service and take back your endorsement. Think about what I’m saying.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_4UX5IMCQLMMNCCKQUWML6KN6NA Mark

    Bravo!  Thank you, Steve!  I applaud you for your endorsement of Newt!

    Newt is the only Republican candidate who has a shot at stopping Romney in the primary.  Romney the Liberal must be stopped!

    Newt for President 2012.

    • Anonymous

      Ron Paul garners more votes from the undecided middle 20% of the electorate, comprising independents and crossover Democrats who are dissatisfied with Obama.  Without that, you win nothing.

      Run the numbers.

  • Anonymous

    Thank God Newt has no chance of winning, this race is between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul, Newt is a distraction soon to be on a book tour.

  • p t

    Steave Deace: You are a fraud! What is worth a discussion about the life of unborn child when hundreds of  others are dying in wars started or supported by people like Newt or you -full of fear who act on lies and disinformation? Ron Paul is real, he is holistically against any form of killing of any human being unless hard proof is found to support the acts of self-defense. You happen to be selective. Abortion is an issue, but killing innocent people 25K miles away appears not to be a serious problem for you at all. Folks, unplug him for good….

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IXZPURLYVTZSLSVBR3PLMOJE5Y bob denver

    Deace’s “family values” are world empire and bombing of innocents. Anything for the continuation of the military-industrial sheeple herders. Humble foreign policy is now “isolationist” to the likes of Deace. True conservatism is a days of old relic. God help us when America’s supposed religious leaders now not only lead us into indefinite war, but squander the wise guidance of our Founding Fathers and theliberties of a once free Republic. When the Deace website header says “Fear God. Tell the Truth. Make Money.” well you can darn near guarantee that a dark tyranny has overtaken this land. Fight for truth…fight for God-given rights. Americana and all that it truly represents….

  • MCarroll

    Steve Deace obviously has zero discernment. Gingrich is a fraud. He is not a conservative, nor a constitutionalist. He will be no different than Obama. For someone who claims to be a Christian, this is inexcusable. Jesus told us we would know them by their fruit, and Deace’s fruit is rotten.

  • KCharleston

    That is very clear, concise, and may add “awesome”!!! 

  • MattC

    Steve, what part of Newt’s record in Congress backs up your confidence that he will veto appropriation bills funding abortion? Newt voted to send $billions to planned parenthood and other family planning programs. Of course, no “abortion” is allowed to be funded by federal money, so Newt’s pledge to you may be “technically” correct. But he’s fooling you. Money is fungible. If Newt gives money to Planned Parenthood for sex education programs, that frees up the organization to subsidize more abortions with its other money. So, Newt’s pledge is worthless.

    Newt is partly responsible for the condition our government is in today because he played a key role in expanding the size and reach of Washington. He supported budgets bigger than those requested by Bill Clinton.

    Sorry, friend. But you just got duped again. When will Christians learn the difference between political rhetoric and political roll call votes?

  • http://beyondspellcheck.com/ Steven Baker

    Mr. Deace: I’ll give you a pass on endorsing Newt Gingrich, but your verbose explanation reels along making me nauseated. You should have stopped writing after, “…the loss of the rule of law.”

  • Anonymous

    Wow, couldn’t have said it better!!

  • Anonymous

    I am so disheartened to see the very same ppl that are blogging on so many other conservative websites and fb.  I recognize so many of the names, but especially the comments that are being posted here.  It is a shock and horror to see so many Ron Paul supporters taking over Christian and conservative websites spewing pure hate and venom at anyone who might question the mere thought that he is not the second coming, and the only canidate worthy of this years nomination.  These are very scary days for the Great Nation, but every time I read what Ron Paul supporters spew makes me NOT WANT the man more.  As a Christian and political activist I have never seen the total disregard for others 1st amendment rights without being attacked with such sheer venomous force if anyone might think of ANYONE other than Ron Paul.  As for Glenn Beck…….throw him to the wolves were he belongs.  I actually admired him greatly, and was a devout follower.  When he took a wonderful Christian lady that was leading in the polls for Texas Gov last year (Ron Paul’s TX Camp Chair) and torched her on his show…mocking her, then supported Rick Perry?!!  Most of us were done with him right then and there and would not trust him any further than I could throw him across a street.  Judge Napalitano interviewed Debra Medina several times on Fox, and said she was the most Constitutional Conservative running for office in the entire nation. If Ron Paul cannot win this nomination without attacking other good Christian Conservatives…..then I have to ask myself if they are Christians, or just paid hacks to try to beat us all into submission.   

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jesus-Raigoza/1461067864 Jesus Raigoza

    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, and was a vocal proponent of Iowa’s historic judicial retention election last year, and Newt’s assistance with that effort was vital.After offering every candidate in the race the chance to show they understand the gravity of this issue, Gingrich is the only one who has demonstrated he does, and can also use the bully pulpit of the presidency to educate Americans on the need to return to the rule of law.*****When McCain ran against Obama, he let him get away with a lie and never explained the lie Obama put out there. McCain would just say, “I can do this and that”. Newt is the only one that can explain it well and make sense of it. He would not let Obama get away with his lies and uh uh uh’s. Fine, Glenn made his case, but the above quote is the reason I cry today and know that Steve understands, it’s about educating the public.

  • Anonymous

    Ron Paul is my choice!

  • Anonymous

    LOL

  • Anonymous

    Bravo!  For weeks I’ve been saying the same thing.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mstrotman1 Mark Strotman

    I totally agree with you

  • http://www.facebook.com/mstrotman1 Mark Strotman

    also as i read some of the other comments from you self righteous fools how sare you condemn a person who admits has made mistakes and has asked God for forgiveness. I also used to be a Glenn Beck fan and adime the work he has done, but the case of Newt how dare Glenn Beck push his self righteouness and pretend he knows the heart of a man when only God does. Newt is a true conservative jsut campare his policies to Reagans and to history, or are you all to lazy to read

    • Scott Jackson

      Not talking about his “human shortcomings”.  How about his Political
      Shortcomings specifically all the times Newt has come out in favor of
      Progressive Political Policies?

  • Russ from Winterset

    Steve,

      Remember “back in the day”? 

      You once told me that Joe Biden is a deep thinker who says wise things that should be taken seriously.  You also told me that Hillary Clinton’s time in the Senate prepared her to take on executive responsibilities.  Now, you tell me that the guy who considers himself to be the Smartest Man in the Room (and keeps getting himself in trouble when he tries to talk his way back out of his “off the cuff” statements) is our best choice for President? 

      Newt supported “the Establishment” choosing leftist Dede Scozzafava to represent the party in a smoke-filled backroom in NY-23, he dissed Paul Ryan’s deficit reduction plan without offering one of his own, he supported government regulation of carbon emissions because it was cloaked in pseudo-science & appealed to his casual intellectual style, and he supported (and still supports?) a federal health care mandate (but only if it’s done “right” by conservatives)?  Newt is intellectually gifted, but he’s built on a foundation of sand.  As a biblical conservative, I can’t believe that you didn’t factor that into your decision.

      Why don’t you just go all in on foolishness & tell me that Larry Eustachy is a fine, upstanding Christian basketball coach?  Or call Steve Alford “a uniter, not a divider”?

      At least you didn’t go “full retard” & endorse Paul.

  • rjohn24991

    Newt Gingrich will not accomplish anything in Washington because the Republicans don’t like him and the Democrats hates him. Newt is a BIG FAT PANDERING CRY BABY! People always state that Newt problems were many years ago well wake up people his small success were many years ago! What have Newt done since he left office. 1. Collected 1.6 million from Freddie Mac2. Global warming with Nancy Pelosi3. Did a education tour for Obama with Al Sharpton4. Critizice Paul Ryan’s plan5. Was for the federal healthcare mandate before he decided to run for the president’s office.6. Was for partial abortion7. Got paid to influence some of the bills especially the prescription drug bill8. And the list goes on and onMitt Romney is the answer

  • Anonymous

    Newt successes is a collective effort of everyone in Congress during those years. Any Congressman during those years can claim the fame. If Newt’s the nominee President Clinton will exploit him heavenly. A Newt nominee = 4 more years for Obama. Wake up my Republican friends! Don’t be fool by Newt and Deace!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ashetalia-Staatz/100001792695528 Ashetalia Staatz

    As a progressive, I am amazed. Let me give you some news from the wide world out there: Newt will not make it outside of your caucus, nor will Paul, Bachmann, Perry, Santorum, Palin. YOU might not care that Newt betrayed his ill wife, or that Paul’s newsletters were openly racist, or that Bachmann is a serial liar, ignorant of history, or that Perry can not string together a sentence in English, or that Palin’s reputation is just a step above a Kardashian’s.

    The rest of us do care about these things.

    The rest of us also care about the ECONOMY, and don’t give a damn about the social causes you espouse so passionately.

    The rest of us learned our lesson after the 2010 midterms. We now realize that you’re a radical fringe. Look at Wisconsin. Look at Ohio. Look at the polls. Be careful.

    Sorry, but your only viable option is ROMNEY. At a time when being a Tea Partier is only marginally more popular than being an atheist, he’s exactly what you need: A Northern, Mormon, middle of the road, flip-flopping “conservative” with a strong history of health care legislation. Nominate Romney, and you might win against Obama. You have no chance otherwise.

  • Mikewest

    What’s up with this photo of Newt in front of a light presenting him with such a halo effect. Maybe presenting old Newt in a new light will subliminally brainwash some gullible Christians. ROFL!!!  

  • Mikewest

    What’s up with this
    photo of Newt in front of a light producing a hallo effect? Maybe presenting
    Old Newt in a new light just might be what it takes to subliminally brainwash some
    Christians who walk by sight.

  • http://twitter.com/MRoCkEd MRoCkEd

    Extremely disappointing. 

  • adam wells

    Your penultimate sentence is the key. Well said, Steve.

  • Tom

    His favorite president is FDR! He believes FDR is the greatest US president. That should say it all. Case CLOSED! If I knew nothing else about him, I’d know enough about his political philosophy to never even consider voting for him. And so shoud any other republican/conservative with half a brain.

  • Firstcorinthians1311

    I am surprised to see Talk Radio logic on this page. Dismissing Ron Paul’s foreign policy as naive without a detailed explanation of the criteria used to reach that conclusion is disturbing. Those of us who have been serious students of U.S. foreign policy understand that naïveté is embodied in the notion that a bankrupt United States can continue in its self appointed role as world policeman.

  • Lobyist4President!

    Yes! A lobbyist For President. Hey Steve, could you ask Gingrich to return my tax dollars he stole from the housing collapse next time you’re getting paid off? I bet this will get you promoted on the Fox Propaganda channel.

  • David

    Steve, you are so clueless! But I guess you are Making Money, so all is ok.

  • Joshuachancey

    Disapointing endorsement. I thought Steve was smarter than this. I will no longer read anything produced by Steve.

  • Verna

    I have listened to Steve for over 5 years (until last year when he was asked to leave the “drive time” slot on WHO.  The only consistent value/belief that he has held on to is his absolute hatred for Mitt Romney.  I could never figure out what it was.  So, the guy is more successful, more rich, better looking, has most likely never cheated on his wife, loves his family, wants everyone to have the opportunity to be successful, has a strong faith based life, and generally all around good guy never seemed to me to be things to hate about a person.  If I take what Steve says about him…that Mitt is a liar and that he lacks sincerity in his explanation of why he changed his opinion on some issues in his life, doesn’t make sense.  Many people reevaluate their opinions on issues.  I know over the years of listening to Steve he had made major changes in his life.  I would not call him a liar because of this or question his sincerity. I have only one thing to conclude about this endorsement.  He hates Mitt Romney so much and is so jealous of him that he is willing to compromise his own personal values to endorse Newt (who I like and think a Romney/Gingrich ticket would be great). If Steve were to be a values voter he would be endorsing Santorum or Bachman.  Why isn’t he?  It’s because he doesn’t believe they can beat Obama, and voting based on that goes against everything Steve has preached over the last 5 years. I like Steve and hope the best for him, but this endorsement crushes his credibility. I just hope we don’t find out that he got money for it.

    • Verna

      I meant to say political beliefs/values.  I believe Steve to be very consistent in his core worldview values…..

  • Anonymous

    You just endorsed Newt Romney?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyGasO7EmsU&feature=colike

    Focus man, focus.

  • Anonymous

    …Then there was another fissure when radio talk show host Steve Deace,
    who has based his entire on-air political persona on a
    take-no-prisoners make-no-compromises platform, gave his endorsement to
    none other than Newt Gingrich, known by some evangelicals as The Great
    Compromiser, and who brings some past moral baggage on board. Deace
    based his decision on Gingrich’s apparent willingness to challenge the
    judiciary and his ability to lead.  If you’re interested enough to have
    read this far, then you really have to go see the rebukes and shrieks of indignation Deace got over that endorsement.

    After the election there will likely be groaning about how the
    evangelical vote broke up.  But mourn not; it’s not always a bad thing
    to break up.  Think of it as an opportunity…..”
     
    http://presbyterianblues.wordpress.com/2011/12/31/when-breaking-up-isnt-such-a-bad-thing/

  • Dan Cesar

    James 2:22

  • Chalkart

    Steve—Thanks for this well thought out endorsement. In my view, out of the 4 conservatives in the race, Newt is the best prepared to tackle the tangled mass of problems the country faces. To me- it’s next to unbelievable this is even a contest. If one of the other conservatives catch fire later on and are the last to challenge Romney for the nomination then I will support their efforts. For now–I’m choosing the best weapon available in the GOP arsenal.  Thanks again!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=506727181 Holly Peterson

    Didn’t you vote for Obama?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=506727181 Holly Peterson

    Also Ron Paul’s foreign policy is “Thou shall not kill.”  Do you honestly have a problem with that?

  • http://twitter.com/politiJim PolitiJim

    How do you idiots come to the conclusion that Newt is the “epitome” of the corrupt politician?  EVERY charge brought against him as Speaker was shown to be false (the IRS even wrote a letter of apology.).  

    Bloomberg PROVED emails from Freddie execs support Gingrich claim he told them to change their model.  The $1.6M that went to his company (Newt only received about $35K/yr during contract from it) was for consulting and ALL GOP leaders have confirmed Gingrich NEVER lobbied them.  Tell me you are the idiot that thinks taking money from a PRIVATE corporation which Freddie is, is somehow any more morally deficient that the earmarks Ron Paul or Rick Santorum took for their districts/state.  75% of ALL homes are either HUD money or were made via FNMA or FHLMC.  The chance that YOUR home was made because of government guarantees is 75% OR HIGHER.  FHLMC has always had flaws – but it did make home loans available to GOOD creditworthy borrowers MOSTLY until the early 90’s.  

    Oh by the way. The ONLY candidate who has ACTUALLY reversed and reformed government and kept spending under control – you’re “scary” ghost – Gingrich.

    Grow up idiots.  Santorum would be ok but would get killed in the media.  Paul is a loon who will dismantle our National Security day one ensuring at least another 9/11 if not worse.  Like Deace said – Romney wouldn’t CHANGE anything and the goal this year is to DISMANTLE government.

    Yes.  Out of office, Gingrich support the Senior Drug program and I”m none to happy about his guest worker program.

    But with the fierce push back at him by the GOP Establishment – as Limbaugh says, he is anything BUT a “big government” RINO.  He is pragmatic politician both telling Tip O’Neil and Bush 41 to go to hell, but also realizing conservatives do NOT make up the majority of this country – or congress.  People have to be SOLD on the programs we implement.

    And ain’t no better communicator than Gingrich.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_V6OR33EVYYSSU3IR5UAD5YDOVI Mark S

    Mitt Romney signed taxpayer-funded abortions into law in Massachusetts on April 12, 2006, which makes Romney personally responsible for the murder of thousands of babies in Massachusetts.
     
    Provides Taxpayer-Funded Abortions:

    Abortions are covered in the Commonwealth Care program that Romney created as Governor.  Under the program, abortions are available for a copay of $50. (Menu of Health Care Services: http://www.mass.gov/Qhic/docs/cc_benefits1220_pt234.pdf)
     
    Guarantees Planned Parenthood A Seat At The Table:

    Romney’s legislation created an advisory board and guarantees, by law, that Planned Parenthood has a seat at the table.  Romney’s plan established a MassHealth payment policy advisory board, and one member of the Board must be from Planned Parenthood.  No pro-life organization is represented. (Chapter 58 Section 3 (q) Section 16M (a), http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/seslaw06/sl060058.htm)

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dave-Leach/1038352513 Dave Leach

    I read several of the most popular comments asserting Deace’s logic, or commitment to Jesus, is flawed, but not one actually clarifying a problem with Deace’s logic. I was disappointed, because if there is a problem with it, I wish someone could explain it to me. I have long sighed over the war between Christian “purists” and “pragmatists”. God hasn’t yet given us the option of voting for angels, or even for Him.  But I want someone who does pretty well on the “platform test”, and who is creative enough to make it happen, both. I think Deace is right that the Judiciary is America’s biggest problem, especially regarding the “social issues”, and Newt unquestionably has the most creative, practical, and determined solution. On many other issues as well, I think Newt’s biggest problem is that his solutions are so brilliant, that someone has to be fairly involved in politics to even understand the problem they solve.

  • Forrestcreek3

    I heard that you were a man that should be respected. How you could be on the front lines and not see the truth in Dr. Paul’s word and his actions does you no credit.

  • 1shinypk

    I am still debating on who to vote for and agree with Steve on many of the points he’s made regarding Newt,however will consider to carefully pray & think through whom to caucus for. That being said I am saddened that many of you who would consider yourselves Christians have chosen to take the vitriolic tone in response to this endorsement, contradicting what the Bible calls us to do in speaking the truth in love so that it may benefit those who listen.Perhaps far too many of you are more interested in Steve endorsing your own candidate rather than praying that people with influence like Steve make decision based on godly priciples and guided by The Holy sprit and God’s Word.I believe that all of us would do better to fast and pray for ourselves,our churches,neighborhoods,cities,states, government, and country than to spew forth some of the rubbish that you have allowed youselves post in response to this endorsement

  • Anonymous

    Steve:  Too bad you didn’t read this first:  15 Things You Don’t Know about Newt
    http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/12/12/Newt-Gingrich-15-Things-You-Dont-Know-About-Him.aspx#page1

    You can vote judges out in most states and Congress can write laws if they don’t like SCOTUS rulings

  • Tcarey

    Steve say it ain’t so..

  • Bill H

    If you are interested in what a biblical prespective is on several major topics and how Ron Paul matches up with them, please view a series of 13 videos titled “The Bible & Ron Paul” by cutwithouthands. Each section is between 3-5 minutes.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&list=PL0E27AFB852E14B16&v=3tYk5mEli68

  • Guest

    Steve i dont know you but please put the crack pipe down

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000194409143 Rob Matherly

    What a hypocritical joke.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000194409143 Rob Matherly

    What happened to not voting for someone just because of the judges, Steve?  What ever happened to voting your principles and not buying into scare tactics?

    I guess none of that matters now that you’re catering to a new audience, eh?

  • OneWhoCare

    Steve,
    Very smart and honest assessment!Dr. Newt Gingrich is the best and smartest conservative who will get the job done.We don’t want extremists in the White House (we have one already, Obama, a golf player who cannot get anything done).Newt Gingrich has demonstrated his skills getting things done even when the House was controlled by Democrats. 

  • http://nss.org/ William W Gardiner

        I never saw a halo around Newt’s head (as the picture on your website suggests ) when he was my congressman in Georgia from 1978 -1992,when redistricting (read:

    court-ordered “gerrymandering”) moved him to a
    “safe” area on the north
    side of Atlanta. He was both very soft-spoken,
    on-point, and effective in
    his interactions with us as constituents, small
    businesspeople and as
    environmental scientists, not the persona you
    frequently hear painted about
    him these days.
    Newt  certainly is worthy of Mike Huckabee’s description of a “Grace Christian” (Mike Huckabee won the 2008 Georgia Republican primary as he did in Iowa).  Take, for example, Newt’s role in reassuring a member of the Supreme Soviet on the eve of the end of the Cold War twenty years ago this New Year’s..

     He was the only respondent to a news release from the Atlanta Chapter of the National Space Society (of which I was an officer) regarding an upcoming telephone conference between my oldest son’s
    fifth grade class and cosmonaut Vladimir Dzhanibekov when
    he was in Akron
    for an attempt at circumnavigation of the globe in a high altitude balloon. Newt’s office  arranged the conference call and Newt offered Dzhanibekov, also the member of the Supreme Soviet at that time,
    help in getting FAA clearance through the NYC air traffic control area. Six
    years later in late 1997 at a town-hall with Newt on the north side of Atlanta, I asked if Newt had
    talked to the cosmonaut recently. He replied that he hadn’t, but offered
    to let me recount the said events. After doing so, I pointed out that a week
    later, the old Soviet Union “shut down for business.” “Not that we had
    anything to do with it,” Newt responded. To
    which I replied “But just
    remember. The Noble Peace Prize is worth nearly a million dollars!” Everyone
    laughed including Newt. I sat down and shut up.But a few months later Cokie Roberts on the
    ABC-TV Sunday program “This Week” remarked “I don’t know what’s been getting
    into Newt lately. He’s been making peace with his
    enemies, even Jesse
    Jackson.” . Later that year, Newt resigned his speakership and congressional seat, wanting to get away from the contentiousness.

    In short, certainly Newt has had his indiscretions, as
    powerful public
    figures are wont to do. But at critical times he exhibited
    rare insight,
    acted on fundamental values and lead in effecting positive
    change. “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.” Matthew 5:9.

    –Bill Gardiner
    Jonesboro, GA

  • Anonymous

    Deace – really disappointed in you.  I’m glad you take responsibility for it because you need to.  I was glad for the scrutiny you placed on Paul and glad you pushed the abortion issue – but what you are doing here – is amazing and so contrary to the high standards you were placing on the candidates.
    I was hoping you would go for Paul – especially considering the very positive pieces you did on him – but at the very least(of the worst) – I thought you would go for Bachman or Perry.
    Enjoy your desserts…

  • TAScott
  • Doug Thompson

    Newt? 
     
    The #1 reason for endorsing Newt is because he has a plan to rein in the activist judicial branch.  I’m good with that, too. 

    But you have to ask yourself, “Why?” 

    Is it to return to a constitutional framework of government restraint?  Or is there a reason why his favorite president is FDR, the closest example of a president reigning in American history and one who had no qualms about threatening the Supreme Court (which tended to dislike FDR’s federal government power grab). 

    There’s no doubt in my mind that Newt’s vision of reining in the judicial branch is more akin to FDR’s practice than it is to the Founder’s vision and practical application of a Separation of Powers to protect the authority of the People and the rule of Law.
     
    A couple of quotes from Newt: (regarding health care)
     
    “It makes, I think same very interesting challenges on both the Right and the Left.  The Right has to decide that some aspects of the working poor hs to involve transfer of fundings.  That to ask people in the lowest paying jobs to bear the full burden of their health insurance is just irrational.  It’s not going to happen.”
    When did a transer of funds become a conservative or constitutional idea?  Newt is a son of FDR to be sure; one who advocated a new bill of rights: like the right to a house, job, and a safety net.
     
    Newt again: (again about health care)
     
    “(1)  I think government has to lead because government is the largest single purchaser of the system.  … 

    (2)  For government to not lead guarantees that you don’t have the ability to change this.  No private corporation has the purchasing power or the ability to reshape the health system. 

    (3)  I am a Theodore Roosevelt Republican. . . . in that I believe government can lead and that regulatory leading is okay.  I like having the private sector delivery within a framework set by the government. . . . But I do like the government as regulator.  The second place I come from is as an Eisenhower Republican. …

    (4)  I would suggest you can take the Eisenhower model and apply it to biological threats, building bio-communications and you can justify a substantial investment in information technology just like Eisenhower. 

    (5)  I would suggest you can decide on the best outcomes of patient safety just like Theodore Roosevelt.  And you can have, and I say that as a Republican, because a lot of my conservative friends are saying, ‘o my gosh, how can you be saying this.’  I think that is to misread the history of the last hundred years in the United States.  Government has to take a leading role.

    ***
    (1)  Nothing stated about the unconstitutional power of the national government.  The silence should be deafening.

    (2)  In other words, Newt is saying, “We have to do something!”  Deacer, aren’t those words a warning flag from your own mouth.

    (3)  The marketplace = individual choice = FREEDOM.  Newt is for the government establshing a fence and then allowing people to make choices within the fenced in area.  That doesn’t sound like freedom to me, but, hey, we’re redefining everything today – even marriage.

    Example:  Newt is for the individual mandate (still is).  That’s the backbone of Obamacare.  The government forcing everyone to purchase health insurance but then patting us on the head and saying, “Don’t fret, your freedom comes in to choose the health insurance company you want.  And by the way, you still have to help the poor by their health insurance, too.”

    (4)  Big Government Republican.  Trying to justify taking tax payer money for unconstitutional power grab.  It’s no wonder that Newt wrote the foreword to The Third Wave.  A book that predicts and encourages the destruction of nation-states (including the US Constitution and American sovereignty) and nuclear family (building block of nation-state civilization).

    (5)  Strange.  I thought the country is at least a couple of hundred years old.  But maybe if Newt looked at the first hundred years then he wouldn’t see the necessity of the government leading.  

    I’m a free man.  Not a serf.

    JScott is right. 
     
     

  • Puckettpg

    I absolutely agree with you, especially your last paragraph.  Brokenness can be the catalyst to victory in a person’s life.  I believe I see that in Gingrich and he has the abilities we need as President.  I hope your influence for him will be acknowledged today in Iowa.  Thank you.

  • Paul Nissan

    How a candidate truly views our military is the indicator.

  • http://www.facebook.com/Leatherneck4Liberty Gary C. Huggins

    I’ve been a member of the GOP since the day I turned 18 and registered to vote Republican in 1972. I’ve seen enough of Newt Gingrich to know that anyone who endorses him has not paid any attention to the fact that he has played a major role in being part of the problem with this nation. I will neither support nor vote for Newt Gingrich. Ron Paul 2012.

  • http://www.facebook.com/doug.mcburney Doug McBurney

    I’ve tried hard to give Newt a second, (or would it be fourth, or 304th) chance. I remember how sad I was to toss my autographed copy of “to Renew America” in the trash during our last move. I was Newt’s biggest fan in 1995…

    I hope Steve’s assessment, that Newt has truly repented is correct, amnd I pray he’s reconciled to the Lord.

    But as long as there is a man in the race who supports personhood, homeschools his kids, and is married to his first wife, I’ve got to stick with him, (Santorum).

    But if Rick drops out my next stop would have to be Newt, (Mtw 18:21-23). Thank you Steve for the thoughtful analysis!

  • Robinann001

    Once again, the “establishment” Republicans are going to force another left leaning canidate on the voters.  I’m an independent voter also a conservative.  I do not believe Romney is a conservative; he is trying to reinvent himself.  I believe that it was Abe Lincoln who said that you could fool some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time. Fox newscasters have been leaning for 2 weeks towards Romney in the way they comment on the campaign and canidates.  Not so fair and balanced.  Ofcourse, I’m sure that no one at Fox will agree with me. 

  • Rozwlado

    I’m sure the 75% or so of the military who support Ron Paul enjoy reading pieces from sheltered journalists who call Paul’s foreign policy “naive” “reckless.” I’m so glad Gingrich and his team of 80 something ethics violations can restore the rule of law before he loves America so much he has to get a new wife. Gingrich isn’t broken; he truly does not care about the loved ones he has hurt and the corruption he has adopted throughout his political career. He will go to his grave caring only about Newt Gingrich having loyalty only to Newt Gingrich. If you don’t give a damn about the Constitution then go ahead and vote for Gingrich. If you actually love America, then you’ll retract this article and vote for Ron Paul.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/TOW42GQNJ75756E5DSPB44CXGE mark

    you are a fool. here we are on the day newt decides to end his presidential run. i’m looking back at those who endorsed him and what they said when they did so. they are all fools. sound leadership comes from a person of principle and newt has never exhibited himself to be a politician, let alone a person of principle. fiscally he operated his campaign like a child. in your endorsement you chose this guy over ron paul based on the argument that ron paul is crazy with regards to foreign affairs. however, you have not done your research on paul (you claimed you did), if you think he is wrong. our current foreign policy is bankrupting us and none of you want to admit this or change it. instead you push these people on us, forgiving all their flaws and write unproven crap about paul’s foreign policy, which is in line with biblical law. the isrealites demanded a king from God even though he warned against it. look how that worked out. please read more into paul’s past present and future. it would be nice if every christian in my life weren’t so blinded by false conviction. there is a list of ridiculous quotes from Dr. paul, google it. see if you really find them all that ridiculous, or ask yourself what people will think of them 20 years down the road or 10 years for that matter. forgiving someone is our christian duty, allowing them to lead us when they have proven themselves unworthy of leadership is erroneous at best, damning at worst. and we are damned, for putting our safety and that of our country into the hands of corrupt politicians, of which your pal newt is certainly one, and not trusting God to provide for and protect us. throwing people off point in regards to christianity is heresy itself. when leading from a christian point of view, please in the future, rely upon and use scripture. not your thoughts sir, which you may keep to yourself. foolish people always will find fools to lead them.