Tag Archives: Mitt Romney

Molon Laba “Come and Take Them.”

Image

These are the words of the Spartan King Leonidas to the Persian King Xerxes at the battle of Thermopylae. The Spartans were asked to surrender their weapons. “Come and Take It,” the slogan of the Texas revolt, was based on this challenge.

When we use these phrases, we must remember that both the attackers, Xerxes and Santa Ana, both came and took them, killing all who uttered these words at Thermopylae and the Alamo. Since words mean things, we must be careful what we say. Are we prepared to give up our lives to preserve liberty and freedom for our wives and our children?

Does this sound extreme? It is July 2012. America has lost the Presidency. Though anything can happen, there is better than a 99% chance that our next President will either be a re-elected Barack Obama or Mitt Romney. From these two really awful choices, Christians have the responsibility to vote for the man who will provide the greatest possible freedom to preach and teach the Word of God. Barack Obama has attacked Christianity as much as he can. But the need to be re-elected has moderated these attacks. I would not be surprised to see anyone opposing him in his 2nd term thrown into prison. Mitt Romney governed MA as a liberal. Mitt Romney will also be restrained by the need to run for re-election.

Solid believers need to vote for Mitt Romney because he offers a chance of providing slightly more freedom. We also need to support him because if we get a better candidate in the future to run in the general election, we will need the votes of liberal Republicans at that time. If we fail to support the party nominee now, why should they support the party nominee then?

The immediate goal of those who wish to invest time and money into providing for liberty and freedom for our wives and children are the senate races. 33 of the 100 seats are being contested this year. Nine of those seats have the current senator retiring. Five have Republicans running for re-election. People who normally vote as a liberal hold all of the remaining 19 seats. While the work is enormous, so are the possibilities for great victory. Whoever is the president ratifies treaties and confirms judges, and not just on the Supreme Court. Wikipedia has a complete list of every election in each state with each candidate.

Once again, if you are going to invest any time or money in any election, invest it in the best possible senate candidate, even if neither senator from your state is running for re-election.

I am constantly asked, “Why do we have such horrible presidential candidates?” The short answer is that liberals have captured the election process. Though there are many facets to this problem, two simple solutions would cure the vast majority of our election ills.

First, we are drowning in voter fraud. While voter fraud happens everywhere, it is by far worse in large cities; Miami, Chicago and LA cannot even consider an honest candidate. My solution to voter fraud is a Constitutional amendment to pay a $10,000 bounty per vote to anyone who proves voter fraud and has the vote removed. Congress will have the authority to raise the bounty, but it will never go below $10,000. This money will be collected as a fine against the state allowing the illegal voting. Congress can define an “honest mistake” exception from the fine. The market will take care of the most outlandish abuses.

Second, the primary process is skewed towards the most liberal candidate from each of the major parties. Simply pass a federal law requiring all presidential primary elections to be held within a single six-week timeframe. Any delegates or candidates elected outside of this timeframe would not be able to vote at the party convention. While congress normally should not interfere directly in party machinery, neither party abided by their own rules for the 2012 primary elections.

Yes, there are more problems, but these begin to fix the most serious problems.

 

1 Comment

Filed under Bible Teaching, Uncategorized

Irreparably Damaged?

The most important election so far was Virginia. Mitt Romney ran with only Ron Paul opposing him on the ballot. Yet Ron Paul, overall in a distant 4th place, polled 40%. The normal, reasonable, rational reaction is what the exit polls showed. 40% of the registered Republican voters will not vote for Mitt Romney under any conditions. Though it is impossible to know, regardless of polling data, how many of these voters will actually vote for Mitt Romney in a general election if Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are the only viable choices, many, many are quite vocal that they will still not vote for Mitt Romney.

Mitt Romney supporters insist that he must be the Republican Party nominee because he is the only man left who can defeat Barack Obama. In 2008, Barack Obama had 69,456,897 votes to John McCain’s 59,934,814. If Mitt Romney is the nominee and even a small number of registered Republicans refuse to vote for him on principle, then he will have almost no chance of winning the general election. Mitt Romney will take some democrat votes away from Barack Obama, but it is very doubtful that these will come close to offsetting the Republican abstainers. Mitt Romney has only one real hope. Democrats are even more upset with Barack Obama. It is very likely that Democratic turnout will be record lows. Some are making early predictions of the WINNER having less than 50 million votes.

The real problem is that a Mitt Romney nomination will convince millions that the election process is irreparably damaged. Unlike the parasites of the occupy movement, these are taxpayers who actually make this country work.

As Frédéric Bastiat pointed out in his 1849 The Law, when the majority of those who make a country work are convinced the Law has been subverted to the point where there is no hope, there are only two possible choices. The nomination of Mitt Romney will do one of two things. It will either cause those who believe Mitt Romney to be no better than Barak Obama to lose heart and stop working. In this case America will descend into a massive, Soviet style depression. The other, far more likely, response? Armed rebellion.

1 Comment

Filed under Bible Teaching, Current Issues, Politics, History

Wacky Presidential Primaries; Part 2

Yesterday we posted a beginning to zany, wacky things going on in the Presidential Primaries. I figured this would be a series going on into or past the general election. Little did I realize that Part Two would be the next day.

The State of Georgia challenged Obama’s eligibility to be on the ballot. Obama was issued a subpoena which he ignored. Judge Halihi ruled that Obama’s birth certificate is valid. Secretary of State Brian Kemp ruled on February 11, 2012 that Obama may appear on Georgia’s ballot because the birth certificate Obama presented is valid and that he is a natural born citizen.

Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich both failed to qualify for the Virginia primary ballot. This was not due to the 10,000 signature threshold, but due to the 400 signatures required in each of Virginia’s congressional districts. Perhaps Ron Paul and Mitt Romney signed all the registered Republicans in Alexandria?

Rick Santorum was told on February 3 that challenges to signatures on his Indiana filing left him 8 votes short of enough to qualify to be on the ballot. There is a legal question of write-in.

If Indiana and Virginia supporters of Rick Santorum are not allowed to write his name in, then their best strategy is to vote for Ron Paul. That would take delegates away from Mitt Romney and give them to a candidate who has no chance of winning.

Anticipating this strategy, some members of the RNC announced today that if the convention is brokered, that is no one wins on the first ballot, they would “look to someone else.” If Mitt Romney loses Michigan (likely, probable) and stays in the race (also likely, probable) and neither Newt Gingrich or Ron Paul support one of the two leaders, then a brokered convention is expected.

2 Comments

Filed under Current Issues, Politics, History

Rick Santorum Won in Iowa! Or, How Much Difference Can Just One Delegate Make?

To those in states with Primaries, the entire Caucus system seems confusing. We stayed up until 2:00 AM to watch the media proclaim Mitt Romney the winner by 8 votes. But the popular vote is not what counts. What counts is the delegates sent to the national Republican convention. While nothing is certified at this point and things can change, it appears that Rick Santorum might have one more delegate than Mitt Romney. How?

The widely publicized vote is actually a straw poll. http://www.iowacaucus.biz/IA_Caucus_Howitworks.html The votes are actually for delegates to a state convention on March 10. At this convention, these delegates will vote for the national delegates. Since they are morally pledged to their candidates, it seems the widely proclaimed Romney 13 delegates, Santorum 12 delegates will be the final outcome, plus Superdelegates (delegates picked by the state Republican convention). Not so fast.

First, at least 2 Ron Paul supporters monitoring vote counts have claimed errors in the vote counts. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/05/santorum-vote-count-error-in-iowa-is-no-big-deal/ The vote counts are not certified, so the totals, and the winners, could change.

Second, in another long shot, Michele Bachmann could attempt to transfer her few votes to Rick Santorum. While there is a lot of buzz about this on the Internet, none of the candidates in the Republican Party has commented on this possibility. The talk has ranged from “almost a done deal” to “not legal, not possible.” It is legal and possible because the state delegates pledged to Michele Bachmann now have no one to vote for and no legal requirement to vote for anyone in particular.

Third is the important part. From state party workers on caucus night, to county caucus, to state caucus, to national convention, these thousands of workers are all volunteers. This heavy time requirement means some of these delegates, especially on the state and county levels, will be unable to attend and vote. Alternates will fill these positions. The state party attempts to fill these empty delegate positions with alternates pledged to the same candidate so the missing delegates are not even noticed. This year saw a massive change. Ron Paul had a well-planned and well-executed plan to grab all the alternate slots throughout Iowa. Because of the late, close race many Rick Santorum supporters stuck around to provide enough Rick Santorum alternates. So if Ron Paul picks up some county delegates, at whose expense will they come? Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney. It is almost certain that Ron Paul will gain some county delegates. The big question is will Ron Paul gain from this strategy or will Rick Santorum be the only beneficiary?

2 Comments

Filed under Current Issues, Politics, History

So Which Republican Candidate Do You Support? And Why?

It seems like every day someone is asking me this. So I am finally writing this blog and from now on will just link to this if anyone online asks me. First, I will support the candidate who most closely supports the United States Constitution and has a chance of winning the general election. The worst Republican candidate has more respect for the Constitution and Law and Order than the best Democratic candidate.

Second, and this is critical, the Constitution of the United States is written in English and anyone who is willing to spend some time on archives.gov can understand what the writers intended. It is not in code and anyone who is unsure as to the meaning of a word, phrase or even an entire Article in the Constitution can research and find the intended meaning.

Third, how honest is the candidate? Members of his own party constantly “praised” Bill Clinton for “being a really good liar.” The average politician does whatever he wants to do and then attempts to justify those actions by claiming that either the Constitution is unclear in that area or the Constitution does not address whatever it is that he wants to do.

Michele Bachmann had the best grasp of Constitutional principles of any candidate in either party. She confronted Rick Perry with his Gardasil fiasco, for which I am grateful. However, when her entire New Hampshire campaign staff quit and she not only did not know it but also denied it, that ended my support for her.

Jon Huntsman is unelectable, either in the primaries or the general election.

Newt Gingrich is unethical. Though he raised a lot of money, most of it is gone. His bulldog attack style turns many people off. He seems to be conservative on several important issues, but is he really?

Rick Perry would be an excellent choice if not for 2 things He insisted on forcing Gordasil on Junior High girls (which thankfully was stopped by the Texas legislature) and giving free tuition to illegals. The problem with these two major issues is the way he defends them. It seems that this man could justify just about anything in his own mind. Ann Coulter gives a very good reason why he could not win in general election.

Ron Paul can win both the Republican Primary and the general elections. I understand that very few of my friends and family members agree with me on this, so please hear me out. America is a very divided nation. Ron Paul has very strong national support. If he is consistently coming in 2nd and 3rd, he will be a major contender at the Republican National Convention. I do not believe that any Republican candidate will pick up enough delegates to win on the first ballot. So compromises and deals will have to be made. If the Republican delegation goes to a forth or fifth ballot, anything can happen. In the general election, he has one advantage over every other Republican. Certain issues, such as the legalization of Marijuana, immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan and closing some foreign military bases, would take votes away from Obama. People who would otherwise vote Democrat will vote for Ron Paul. Ronald Reagan also took away votes from Democrats. Every one of these votes not only increases his chance of winning but also decreases Obama’s chances. It is the same as picking up two undecided votes. Also, President Obama did not win in a landslide and he has far less support in his own party this time. The margins will be close and Ron Paul has the ability to squeak out a victory by appealing to millions of pacifists who normally do not block vote. While no one knows how many Amish/Mennonites there are in this country, estimates place that number over 10 million. Though many of them do vote, most will not support any kind of military intervention. They will not pick up arms and will only serve in the military in noncombatant roles such as Chaplin’s assistants or medical personal. They did not vote for John McCain or George Bush. Enough of these people voting for the first time could swing several key states where they have large populations such as Pennsylvania, New York and Ohio.

Ronald Reagan was our oldest President. He took the oath of office for the first time when he was 70 years old and 74 for his second term. Ron Paul is 76 and would not be sworn in until he was 77. With the average life expectancy in this country being 78.1, the odds are that Ron Paul would not live out his first term. He does not have the health to put his entire agenda into place. So which of his stated goals are most important to him?

The vast majority of Republicans will agree with everything, or almost everything up to this point. I like Ron Paul’s reduction in government. His foreign policy and military positions seem dangerous at best and suicidal at worst. Though Ron Paul and I both believe that recreational use of drugs is destroying the fabric of this nation, we disagree on what to do about it. Because of his age, position on legalizing drugs, reducing our military and his position toward Israel, I cannot wholeheartedly support Ron Paul. Unlike other fellow conservatives, I could vote for Ron Paul if he would miraculously survive the nominating process.

Ann Coulter wrote last week that we must nominate Mitt Romney because he is the only candidate who can win the general election for the Republicans. This seems to be the major point of conservatives who support him. Mitt Romney is an establishment Republican. I am not sure if he is a RINO (Republican In Name Only), but he is certainly not what I want in a President. Compared to Arlen Specter or Chris Christie, Mitt Romney is a conservative. But Ann Coulter also said that the most important 2 issues are stopping the invasion of illegals and ending Obamacare. The very day Ann endorsed Mitt Romney as the only candidate capable of winning, Mitt Romney had a press conference where he said that he would repeal Obamacare as one of his first acts in office. But he also said that he thinks the core of Obamacare, the individual mandate, “is fundamentally a conservative principle.” He defended the individual mandate in Massachusetts with Romneycare. So Mitt Romney believes the details of Obamacare are wrong, but the fundamental principles of Romneycare are “fundamentally a conservative principle.” Mitt Romney believes that Obamacare is wrong in the details, but its fundamental principles are conservative? This is exactly what Ann Coulter condemned as unacceptable, yet she endorses Mitt Romney anyway.

Mitt Romney had questionable judicial appointments and the MA government grew larger under his administration. To be honest, Ronald Reagan saw the government grow while was Governor of CA and while we was President. Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum take the same positions on the illegal issue.

This is sad, but I support Rick Santorum because he has the fewest negatives. Isn’t this the way American Politics usually works out? Rick Santorum can win PA, NY and maybe one or two New England states. It will be very difficult and close but I believe that he can win the general election.

He is a Roman Catholic who opposes abortion, favors the death penalty, will cut trillions from the National budget including eliminating several federal agencies, will reduce (though not eliminate) federal taxes, bomb Iran if necessary, and support the military. He homeschooled his children (which is the major reason he lost re-election to the senate), is a member of the NRA and owns guns, wears sweater vests, is a lawyer, allows (not requires) government funds for contraception, is opposed to all stimulus and welfare, opposes homosexuality, wants to cut all corporate taxes to zero, is in favor of tort reform, believes that the sagging economy is caused by the federal stop sign on oil drilling, believes that the major cause of poverty is the lack of 2-parent families, had a 100% voting record according to the Christian Coalition, wants the President to have a line item veto, believes our trade and labor laws need to change to make the USA more competitive with China, believes that higher minimum wages contribute to unemployment, believes that Social Security, welfare and all other entitlements need to change to remain solvent and that the Bush era tax cuts need to become permanent. Those tax cuts should only be a starting place for more tax cuts.

Stopping short of an endorsement, Rush Limbaugh said that he could sleep well at night knowing that Rick Santorum was commander-in-chief.

Rick Santorum authored the book It Takes A Family to counter Hillary Clinton’s It Takes A Village. I have yet to meet a Republican who did not like Rick Santorum. He is likable, with probably the best speaking abilities of the major candidates. When Rick Santorum had just been sworn in as Senator, I called him and had severe problems reaching him because the Senate refused to give him a phone or office. The only serious complaint I hear is that he is too conservative to win a national election. The last man that charge was leveled against was Ronald Reagan.

1 Comment

Filed under Current Issues, Politics, History

Is Mitt Romney Really Our Only Hope?

I commented to a Mitt Romney supporter that he should be careful to be honest. He immediately wrote back that I was calling him a liar. No, I was just cautioning him. With the latest Ann Coulter column from TownHall.com, however, I believe a line was crossed. http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2011/12/28/only_one_candidate_is_right_on_the_two_most_important_issues/page/full/

There are two parts to this article. She opens by saying “In the upcoming presidential election, two issues are more important than any others: repealing Obamacare and halting illegal immigration. If we fail at either one, the country will be changed permanently.” That is an opinion; and a very good one, I might add.

She makes several well-thought-out arguments to prove her point, bolstered by enough facts to convince most reasonable people. So her major premise is honest, factual and well thought out. She might not convince everyone but there is no question that she is very honest in her major premise.

She then moves to her minor premise, that only Mitt Romney can defeat Barack Obama. Ann opens with several solid points. “Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich have never had to win votes beyond small, majority-Republican congressional districts.

“Jon Huntsman, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum have won statewide elections, but Huntsman and Perry ran in extremely red states that don’t resemble the American electorate. Only Romney and Santorum have won a statewide election in a blue state, making them our surest-bets in a general election.

“But if Santorum wins, we lose on the second most important issue — illegal immigration — and he’ll be the last Republican ever to win a general election in America.”

This last sentence seems to be absolute nonsense on the face of it, but a well-respected commentator like Ann Coulter gets the opportunity to make her case. She then shifts to explain the horrors of illegal immigration finishing with “Any candidate who opposes E-Verify is not serious about illegal immigration.” Once again, her opinion, but one I go along with.

She then says: “Kowtowing to business (while pretending to kowtow to Hispanics), Paul, Perry and Santorum oppose E-Verify. As a senator, Rick Santorum voted against even the voluntary use of E-Verify.” Though Ronald Reagan’s 11th commandment “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican,” should keep Ann from saying this even if it were true, this is a lie.

The truth is that Rick Santorum voted for the “Basic Pilot Program” HR 3610 (E-Verify) on 7/18/1996. He voted for E-Verify again on 11/12/2003 under the name “Basic Pilot Program Extension and Expansion Act of 2003.” Rick Santorum voted against the McCain/Kennedy amnesty for illegals bill which was deliberately mislabeled with the propaganda term “E-Verify.” Ann Coulter is very confused on this point. Mitt Romney actually worked with Rick Santorum to help defeat this bill. In fact, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum have worked on the same conferences, committees, etc. to help stop illegal immigration. So where is the difference?

The same day (Wednesday, Dec 28, 2011) Ann Coulter’s piece choosing Mitt Romney as the only right candidate for defending us from Obamacare, Mitt Romney says that the foundation of Obamacare, the individual mandate, is “a conservative fundamental.” Ann Coulter admits that every single Republican candidate, without exception, has pledged to repeal Obamacare. Again, this is a matter of honesty, telling the truth. Every other candidate will actually repeal Obamacare. Mitt Romney, however, plays with words. He actually believes that socialized medicine is a fundamental right. Mitt Romney actually believes that the only problem with Obamacare is in the details, the way that it is worded. Mitt Romney actually believes that the solution is Massachusetts style healthcare. http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/12/28/today-december-28-2011-mitt-romney-calls-obamacare-conservative/

So for the repeal of Obamacare, one of Ann Coulter’s two foundational issues, Mitt Romney is the only Republican candidate who is completely UNQUALIFIED. Using Ann Coulter’s own standards of illegal immigration and Obamacare, the only logical conclusion is anybody but Mitt Romney. There is no other honest, logical conclusion.

1 Comment

Filed under Current Issues, Politics

President Herman Cain

An unidentified man won a bet on the St. Louis Cardinals winning the World Series with 999 to l odds. Long shots can win whatever the odds. This also applies to elections. It’s not over until the last vote is counted. At this point anything can still happen. But the outcome of the 2012 Presidential election is already almost certain.

Gambling houses exist because the odds favor the house. The odds in politics heavily favor the status quo. Our son has asked in despair what he could do to end political corruption, but he didn’t like the answer. If you really want to make a difference, learn accounting and stay out of debt. Follow the money trail to find out who the real good guys and bad guys are. Then learn the system to understand how to make the bad guys pay and help the good guys win.

This would take a lifetime of effort, which is why bad guys often win. It’s too much trouble to stop them. The best example I know of this is the original TV Series Law and Order, Season 8, Episode 21, “Bad Girl.” The DA’s office has decided not to ask for the death penalty in this particular case. Robert Vaughn plays a representative of the police union. He meets with D.A. Adam Schiff in a closed-door meeting and tells Adam that they want this girl, who killed a police officer, executed. Regardless of the rest of the storyline, this is how the real world works. The rich and powerful call a closed-door meeting where they tell others what to do. This is what the current Occupy Movement claims to hate, yet their very tactics support that system. It is this very lack of understanding of the system that will allow Herman Cain to become our next President.

In a grossly oversimplified view, there are three basic types of primaries. Caucuses have party members who have earned the right to vote (usually by just showing up). They vote in a closed meeting. Though the average nonparticipating voter can vote for a representative, he does not directly vote for the candidates. Next are closed primaries. In a closed primary, only voters who register for the party holding the primary can vote. Last are open primaries where anyone can vote, just like a general election.

In states with a caucus system, you campaign to a small number who will vote. In states with a closed primary, you campaign to your party’s base. In states with an open primary, you campaign like a general election, emphasizing your party’s issues.

In the 2012 election, if Obama wins the Democratic nomination, he will almost certainly lose the general election. Yes, the St. Louis Cardinals beat 999 to 1 odds and something could cause Obama to win re-election. But the house usually wins and the house is against Obama. So the Republican nominee will probably win the general election. The odds are massively in his or her favor.

The Republican Party is split between conservatives, generally known as the TEA party movement, and more liberal members. Within the Republican Party, conservatives have more votes and liberals have more money. Several strong conservatives on principal have split the conservative vote. Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain and Rick Santorum and Ron Paul are vying for the same voters. Normally, that would leave the only strong liberal candidate, Mitt Romney, with the nomination.

In spite of what the liberal news pundits keep telling us, there are several reasons why Romney is not gaining support and pulling ahead. One is Ron Paul’s campaign. Even if Ron Paul is not the nominee, and his nomination is very doubtful, many of his policies will become part of the party platform. These policies are anathema to Mitt Romney and liberals like him. As various campaigns run out of money and collapse, the votes pledged to those candidates forced out of the running will be transferred to someone else. Historically, those votes go the candidate with the best chance of winning whose views are closest the candidate who dropped out. Of the conservative candidates, Herman Cain has the most support and the most money. Without any support from Mitt Romney and his followers, if Herman Cain picks up the votes pledged to Michelle Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry, he will have a majority.

The major reason I believe Herman Cain will win is that he is the most liberal of the conservative candidates. His economic program is to simplify the tax code, but keep it “revenue neutral.” That is, no massive reduction in the bloated federal government. Though he says that he is pro-life, he wants to end Roe v Wade and let the individual states decide on abortion. He wants to stop illegals from coming into the US, but he has not spelled out how. Herman Cain is the only conservative that can take votes away from Mitt Romney.

Herman Cain is also likable and honest. His lack of political experience, at least for now, is a plus. The only other candidate that comes across as completely honest is Ron Paul. People are horrified by Ron Paul’s attempts to legalize drugs and close all foreign military bases, but they respect his honesty. Even Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann hedge their statements, which Republican voters are tired of. Even when I disagree with Herman Cain, I know why. Neither of the Bush presidents could claim as much honesty or clarity in their statements.

But in the end it is a numbers game. In the 2008 general election John McCain had 59,934,814 votes and Barack Obama had 69,456,897 votes. About 18 million voted in the Republican primaries, but most states had only a few thousand who controlled the delegate selection process. Probably the most telling sign is in the polls which show Herman Cain ahead of Rick Perry in Perry’s home state of Texas.

1 Comment

Filed under Current Issues, Politics