Judicial Watch lists former speaker Newt Gingrich as a “dishonorable mention” in its top ten most corrupt politicians for 2011. Christian Conservative radio talk show host Steve Deace endorses Gingrich. How does that happen?
In its top ten list and the “dishonorable mentions”, Judicial Watch lists 12 democrats and only 6 Republicans. In this select group, Gingrich joins Rep. Spencer Bachus (insider trading), Former Senator John Ensign (bribery), Attorney General Eric Holder (Fast and Furious, and several other issues), Rep. Alcee Hastings (sex scandals and retaliation), Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (Blagojevich’s sale of a Senate seat), President Barack Obama (illegal ACORN funding, and several other issues), and Rep. Charles Rangel (income tax issues, and illegal fundraising techniques).
So why did Gingrich make this list? Judicial watch says that Gingrich has “a career plagued by scandal and corruption” including “intentional…or reckless” disregard for House rules for which he was fined a record setting $300,000; giving Congress “inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable” during investigations; participating “in DC’s lucrative influence-peddling industry”, maintaining secrecy in his questionable relationship to Freddie Mac; evidently falsely claiming , “I have never done lobbying of any kind”; and, of course, committing adultery against “his second wife while serving as Speaker of the House”.
None of this phases Deace. He endorsed Gingrich implying that he offers “bold leadership” and “a real means by which to actually undo that which the Left has done to this country for the past 50 years”. Deace hinted at this move weeks ago and then laid low for a while. I had thought, or perhaps only hoped, that these hints were but a passing fancy. Alas, I was wrong.
He seems to have undergone a noticeable conversion. While the old Deace would just as soon have turned in a blank ballot than vote for a candidate that didn’t meet his minimum standards; the new Deace wants to win. Defending his endorsement, he states, “This country is in trouble and bold leadership is needed.” The old Deace had minimum standards that were high enough to frequently leave him with no major-party candidate. He often frustrated Republicans with his hardnosed application of his principles, stating that he would stand for the right and leave the results to God. The new Deace says: “there are several good, Christian people running that most years I would vote for. However, this isn’t most years.” The old Deace looked at the long-term strategy; but the new one is rush by a sense that “we may never get another environment with the country so prepared to challenge the system as we have right now.” For years, Deace has refused to give Romney credit for his professed pro-life conversion; but now he grants an indulgence to Gingrich for his professed change of heart on abortion:
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…
In one thing the old Deace and the new Deace agree: limiting judicial review. He writes that Gingrich is one of
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.
Deace’s deep concern about the loss of rule of law centers on judicial activism:
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.
While Deace is correct about this, his solution is tantamount to the overthrow of the Constitution itself. In his endorsement of Gingrich, Deace alludes to limiting “the judicial oligarchs’ ability to legislate from the bench” but does not tell, in this post, how the president should do that. Here I quote, not Deace, but his friend and co-author, Gregg Jackson; listeners of Deace’s radio show will recognize this to accord with Deace’s view:
For example, Steve asked each one of the candidates as president what they would do if Personhood legislation were passed and the Supreme Court attempted to “strike it down.” None of the candidates were able to provide the correct answer. Bachmann said she would “re-draft” and introduce new legislation. Gingrich to his credit, came the closest, saying he would limit the court’s jurisdictional authority to review the legislation. But they all missed an even more simple solution which is that a president is obligated to ignore any unconstitutional court ruling and call for the impeachment of the judges who issued the opinion.
Gingrich’s answer “limit the court’s jurisdictional authority to review the legislation” is explicitly provided in the Constitution, though it is rarely remembered and perhaps never used. On the other hand, the “simple solution …. that a president … ignore any unconstitutional court ruling” would be revolutionary. The reality here is that Gingrich gets Deaces endorsement because he came closest to Deace’s view on what Deace apparently sees as the single most important issue facing America. But if Deace really wants a revolution, he would be better to side with Paul’s Tricorn Militia, not an established insider.
Deace’s concern is so great that even admittedly good candidates won’t do. No, unwilling to trust in truth and righteousness this time, Deace says, “Electing another nice conservative with no proven ability to govern or a killer instinct to take on the system changes nothing”. And sounding unsure of God’s future grace, he takes matters into his own hands so that he does not “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.”
I miss the old Deace.
Latest posts by Christopher Levi (see all)
- A Look at Miramonte: What’s Gone Wrong With Society? - February 13, 2012
- Starbucks Boycott? Controversies over Guns and Gays - January 30, 2012
- Gingrich, the Alinsky Republican! Really? - January 26, 2012