Christians Must Vote for Romney…?

It’s no secret that I have been and remain a vocal critic of Mitt Romney. To say that his conservative bona fides are suspect is an understatement. I have tremendous respect for a number of fellow evangelical Christians who say that they will not support his presidential candidacy. I expect I will anger some of them, and may even lose a few friends. Still, in November, I am voting for Mr. Romney and suggest that any Christian – Republican, Democrat or independent – should do the same.

Jesus admonished: “Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents and harmless as doves.” (Matthew 10:16). It is through this biblical prism that I shine my multicolored analysis.

President Obama is a wolf. Though he purports to be Christian, his policies are decidedly un-Christian. This man eagerly advances a culture of death. He is the most radically pro-abortion president in American history. He has dutifully signed off on – and implemented at each opportunity – every extremist demand of the radical pro-abortion and homosexual activist lobbies.

Mr. Obama has shown utter disregard – if not total disdain – for the U.S. Constitution. Not the least of his indefensible infringements is his recent Health and Human Services mandate requiring, under penalty of law, that all Christian and Catholic organizations violate fundamental church tenets by providing abortifacients, sterilization and contraceptive services to employees. This may be the single most egregious breach of First Amendment freedom in our lifetimes. Thankfully, the church isn’t backing down, has refused to comply and is fighting tooth and nail in court to reinstate constitutional liberty.

Scripture says that Christians are known by their fruit. Mr. Obama’s fruit is rotten to the core. He talks like a Christian while his actions scream secular-socialist. I intend to work with every fiber of my being to see that Mr. Obama is not re-elected. To the extent this benefits Mr. Romney, so be it.

It took one word to convince me: judges. The next president likely will fill at least two Supreme Court vacancies in the next four to eight years. Appointing Supreme Court justices may be the single most significant thing any president can do. For better or for worse, it profoundly steers law, public policy and culture at large in perpetuity.

This is our most crucial point of focus: ensuring an originalist, strict constructionist majority on the high court. If Mr. Obama is re-elected and appoints one, two or even three more Ruth Bader Ginsburgs, forget it. America, as our founders envisioned her, is dead.

Though Mr. Romney’s judicial appointment record while governor of Massachusetts was erratic at best, he has pledged during this election cycle, “I will appoint conservative, strict constructionists to the judiciary.”

Flip-flop? Perhaps. Still, Mr. Romney has proved that he cares about and understands political self-preservation. If Mr. Romney wins the White House and expects a second term, there is a strong chance, I believe, that conservatives can hold him accountable to his word.

Indeed, political self-preservation will provide Mr. Romney a strong incentive to honor his pro-life, pro-family conservative rhetoric. Most important, it significantly increases the chances that he will appoint originalist judges to the Supreme Court as promised.

With Mr. Obama, we know what we will get – we’ve already gotten it. You need only consider his Supreme Court appointments of Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. If he is re-elected, why would we expect anything less? We’re guaranteed additional counter-constitutionalist radicals.

Some might say I’m putting pragmatism over principle, but I disagree. In this case, the two are not mutually exclusive. Remember Christ’s counsel: Be wise as serpents and harmless as doves.

My friend and colleague Cynthia Dunbar, a law professor at Liberty University School of Law, recently wrote: “In this election year, we find ourselves with only three realistic courses of action: 1) Don’t vote; 2) vote for Obama; or 3) vote for Romney.”

It’s simple: A Christian nonvote is a vote for Mr. Obama in that it fails to affirmatively cancel out an Obama vote. Furthermore, any Christian who votes for Mr. Obama will get to take that up with God.

This leaves us with our third and final choice: Christians must vote for Mitt Romney. A second Obama term is simply unacceptable. We won’t survive it.

Matt Barber (@jmattbarber on Twitter) is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action

Matt Barber

By

Matt Barber (@jmattbarber on Twitter) is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action.

Subscribe to CE
(It's free)

Go to Catholic Exchange homepage

  • Coco

    Have Mormons already reversed the policy that blacks are non-humans?

  • Mike Lawless

    And for those who feel inclined to “vote their conscience” by writing in Santorum (my personal favorite during the primaries), or Palin, or anyone else, I see that as virtually the same thing as not voting at all. Obama must be defeated at all costs, and the only way to make that happen is to vote for Romney, even if it means some of us “holding our noses” while we do so. Like it or not, the candidate I favored did not prevail in the primaries, and now, I see Romney as far less bad than Obama. And by the way, it’s not enough that we have a president who will appoint strict-constructionist justices; we also need a Senate that will confirm them. I’ve seen analyses suggesting that the Republicans have a legiitmate shot of achieving at least a majority in the Senate (but probably far from a filibuster-proof majority, sadly).

  • Poppiexno

    I have previously pleaded on these pages for people to consider the consequences of an Obama victory. His reelection will be a catastrophe! Some have claimed conscience for not voting for Romney. Some have wanted to “send a message” to the Republican Party. Any action other than voting for Romney (for example, voting for a write-in candidate or not voting at all) is tantamount to a vote for Obama. The issue of life alone should be a sufficient reason to vote for Romney.

  • servantofcharity

    I happily voted for Rick Santorum last week in the California primary even though Romney had clinched the nomination, but in November a Santorum write-in is not an option.  I respect but do not understand those who refuse to vote for Romney on principle.  If that principle produces another Obama term, where did it get us?  In this election, pragmatism is principle, and as Christians, it is our duty.

    John
    servantofcharity.blogspot.com

  • LeRoy Bishaw

    A no vote or a vote for anyone other than Romney and you might as well cast your vote for obama.

  • pp00ty

    It’s been said before: “The United States of America” will destroy themselves and fall to the lowest of levels,  simply for allowing abortions to continue in their Country. If the abortions don’t stop, watch out, you people are in deep trouble. From someone in Canada. If a vote for Obama is going to destroy your Country, then for your sake and for God’s asking,  vote for Romney. Real people of God do not vote for abortionists. They vote for LIFE.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=501002865 Tony Frasco

     Yes.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=501002865 Tony Frasco

    The author has some strong words but the truth is evident in this article.  It is crazy how a man who claims to be “Christian” can do the opposite in his words and actions.  Romney on the other hand believing in Mormonism which isn’t Christian, holds to the values of Christians more.  A Christian cannot vote for Obama unless they are ignorant of what he is doing in this country.  

  • Dan Marcum

    I disagree with your assessment. First, re: there being only three choices, Romney, Obama, and Not Voting, you must not forget the good that can be done by voting for a third-party candidate. A vote for a third party candidate is not a vote for Obama. In addition to voting for a good candidate, a third-party vote also sends an important message about America’s wants and needs, and that should not be ignored. You say that we must not vote third-party because doing so “fails to cancel out the Obama votes.” But you need to be reminded of two things. One, our responsibility is for our own actions, not those of Obama supporters. If a majority of people vote for Obama, and a smaller number vote for their conscience, then the conscience-voters are not responsible for failing to out-vote the culprits. Our job is not to succeed. It is to do what’s right. Second, voting for Romney is tantamount to voting for Obama, because their ideas are the same on the most important points. Consider the following points:

    1. Romney doesn’t believe an individual mandate or a birth control mandate is unconstitutional, because he backs them in Massachusetts.2. Romney supports laws that pay for the destruction of embryos, as long as they do other good things; such as the Massechusetts healthcare law. Also think of embryonic stem-cell research. For Catholics, that is a non-negotiable, and Romney is on the wrong side — just like Obama.3. Romney’s abortion promises are anti-family and pro-choice, and I’m talking about this campaign, not his past campaigns, which were worse. But the trick he uses is, he shrouds his pro-choice views in pro-life language to win over evangelicals and Christians. Every time in this campaign that he has claimed to be pro-life, he has simultaneously said he doesn’t think abortion should be banned or prohibited by any type of Congressional action. He thinks people should be free to obtain abortions in any state that has them legalized — that’s his promise from THIS campaign, not a distant one.
    4. Romney’s healthcare law provides abortions on-the-cheap, just like Obamacare, and forces Catholic institutions to pay for contraception and abortifacients — just like Obamacare. When Romney is asked about this, does he say the law is unjust and a violation of religious liberty? No — he says, “It’s right for Massachusetts, just not for the whole United States.” He is not a friend of religious liberty, or the unborn.
    5. Romney has run a record of raising taxes and hiking fees to pay for government interventionism and overreach. His plans would increase the speed of our downfall now that we have careened over the debt-spending cliff. 6. Romney has supported embryonic stem cell research. That’s baby-killing, plain and simple.7. Romney has shown no problem appointing activist pro-abortion judges to the Massachusetts supreme court. His newest promise, that he will only appoint strict Constitutionalists, suggests nothing more than that he would appoint Kennedy-style moderates, who believe the Constitution supports abortion under its “liberty” promise. 8. Do not forget that Romney spent millions of dollars to air lies and falsehoods about Rick Santorum and about his own record as governor. He and his super-pacs spent more lie-money than any other candidate ever spent. His ads are lies, his promises are lies, his record is flip-flops, and we want to trust this man with the vote of Christian conscience? I say no. I believe we can vote for a third-party candidate, and I believe a third-party candidate can win. I believe if we vote for Romney, we will get four more years of Obama, except this time in a Republican suit.

  • edmund burk

    he said what I think!

  • edmund burk

    For all of you writers who said we must vote for Romney otherwise it’s a vote for Obama.
    That’s a weak arguement for getting people to vote for  Romney. Everybody who pays attention knows the main difference beteewn Romney and Obama, is that Romney is’nt as radical. So what do we gain with a Romney presidency? He’s still a progressive so at best we get a John Mccain or George Bush presidency, meanwhile our debt stands at
    15 trillion dollars and rising. Romey during the debates has never articulated a plan to get us out of this mess plus, he’s on RECORD saying he’s a progressive on social issues, so for those of you who are pro lifle, at best you can expect no real progress
    against abortion, with a Romney presidency. At best those who say Romney is the lesser of two evils cannot say why he’s better then Obama except to say he isn’t Obama
    and IMHO I don’t think that going to persuade indpendants to vote for Romney.
    I would vote for Ron Paul except his forien policy is wacky and his past associations are
    shady.

  • Pat

    As much as I would love to see it, this country isn’t ready for a third party candidate at the presidential level. And Obama is way more dangerous than Romney ever thought of being.

  • Dan Marcum

    You said, “this country isn’t ready for a third party candidate at the presidential level”

    The data says otherwise. More people than ever are registered as independents, more than Democrats OR Republicans. Plus, in a recent head-to-head poll, a 3-way match-up between Romney, Obama, and Ron Paul gave Ron Paul 13% with Romney and Obama splitting the majority 44 to 39. (Rasmussen polling.) With advertising and grassroots activism, the 13% number could be driven upward. Ron Paul isn’t planning to stay in the race, but that’s just an example that America is more ready than ever for a third-party candidate. It is now do-able for the first time.

    You said, “And Obama is way more dangerous than Romney ever thought of being.”

    On social issues, that’s debatable, because of Romney’s veiled language, flip-flops, and outrageous positions on things like stem-cell research, birth control mandates, and gay adoption. On economic issues and foreign policy, Romney and Obama could be running mates. On property rights, they are both socialists and have done everything in their power to give government more control over citizen property. From a Catholic perspective neither candidate can be put on the right side of the threshhold (the threshhold being the non-negotiable issues).

    To me, Catholics aren’t faced with a choice of Hitler versus Stalin. They are faced with a choice of Hitler, Stalin, and third-party voting. And if we all work for a third-party candidate, a third-party candidate can win.

  • James Stagg

    Matt…..I am reluctantly convinced that we must all vote for Mitt Romney.  He was not my first through fourth choice among those will to campaign……..but to consider the alternative is terribly frightening.

    Here we go………………………….G-d help us!

  • QuoVadisAnima

    Ron Paul just voted against the bill to stop sex-selection abortion, too.

    Romney stinks.  I fought tooth & nail against him in 2008 when most of the conservative media was telling everyone he was the perfect conservative.  And I fought against him all the way up until Santorum dropped out.

    I still voted for Santorum in our state’s primary anyway in hopes that it would send a message to the GOP & Romney that they need to consolidate their base if they want to win.

    Nevertheless, I will be holding my nose & voting for Romney in November.  He is not going to pull this country out of the mess it’s in, but he is not so stupid as to thumb his nose at those who get him in to office & can keep him there – or yank his failed behind out if need be.

    Obama not only will continue to cater to HIS radical socialist base & thumb his nose at the majority of the American people, BUT he will also have plenty of experience at how to force his agenda thru despite the opposition of Congress, the Constitution & the rule of law!  Because of that factor, I would even vote for the green Obama 1.0 if he was the only other option against Obama 2.0!!

    If we do not remove Obama from power ASAP, the damage to this country will surely be irreversible!

  • QuoVadisAnima

    Yeah, many sent a message to the GOP in 2008 when it was McCain and look how successful that was!  Not!
    The GOP will not get the message until the rebuilding from the grassroots finally makes its way to the top.  IOW, it’s not going to happen until the top dogs are finally pushed out to pasture by the new guys moving in.  That canNOT happen in one or two election cycles.

    It would really help if people would actually make an effort to look at candidates’ record & resumes instead of relying on rhetoric & campaign promise!

  • Victoria

    Dan, 
    I wish I could agree with you, but you are unrealistic. Independent voters would never agree on a 3rd party candidate. We are to be wise as serpents, which does not include allowing Obama to win to “send a message.” He has enough pro-death supporters who believe in license vs freedom, to win unless all those who oppose abortion and same-sex marriage stand up and vote against him- which means voting for Romney, who is the only one who stands a chance of winning.
    I would have liked to see Santorum win, but maybe that can happen in 2016 — but not if Obama gets elected again.

  • DavyJB

       Mr. Barber might have an acceptable voting strategy in the lesser of two evils approach, but it’s the same compromise for at least the last 20 years regarding presidential elections.  I think there was a missed opportunity for all Christians and people of good will to make an impact during the time that it really matters – the primaries. 

       The Supreme Court route to overturning Roe V. Wade is entirely ineffective and would take even more years (adding on to the decades) to see that happen even with a conservative Court.  Ron Paul proposed using an executive order (as president) to take away juristiction from the Court on the matter of abortion.  This would immediately give power back to the states to ban abortion in effect overnight.   

       Whether it’s Ron Paul or another candidate that respects the Constitution, much more emphasis is needed on making an impact earlier in the election cycle.  Romney did not win by great margins in many places, and was actually on the ropes at one point. 

      

  • guest

    It’s a Cult! It would only create a stamp of approval for them. I will not vote for him!

  • Pcquest

    Voting for Romney has consequences, as we have
    heard often, and one of those consequences could be that you might cause
    someone to join the cult and miss the opportunity to be a true believer.

    You will find a tremendous amount of research
    into the topic of Mormonism being a cult. There is a movement to “mainstream”
    Mormonism and get believers to accept it as one of many ways to eternity with
    God. The same is happening with Islam and other false religions.

  • Dan Marcum

    You said, “I wish I could agree with you, but you are unrealistic. Independent voters would never agree on a 3rd party candidate.”

    The data says they are ready for a third-party candidate. Most independents agree that the two-party system has failed us. They are looking for alternatives, and they have good grounds for doing so: because we are faced with two secular socialists, an R and a D, if we don’t.

    You said, “We are to be wise as serpents, which does not include allowing Obama to win to ‘send a message.’ He has enough pro-death supporters who believe in license vs freedom, to win unless all those who oppose abortion and same-sex marriage stand up and vote against him- which means voting for Romney.”

    If everyone who opposes abortion and same-sex marriage will stand up and vote for ANY single candidate, that candidate will win, whether it’s Romney or Santorum or whoever. That is precisely why a third-party candidate can win. And regarding your point that sending a message isn’t enough, there is more to it than that, I’m just saying we shouldn’t ignore the power of sending a united message to Dear Leader. What should motivate us to vote against Obama and Romney is this: that we should vote for what is right. You may not agree that we can be successful if we do (and I think we can), but we are not called to be successful. We are called to do what’s right. Romney and Obama both fail the test when the standard is the non-negotiables, and I am not willing to compromise on those issues.

  • QuoVadisAnima

    Seriously – and what is Marxist atheism?  Is that the cult you would prefer to continue to live under?

  • QuoVadisAnima

    Yep, and he would in fact not be the nominee if social conservatives had consolidated behind a more conservative candidate, but divided we fell.  Again.  And handed it to Romney and the “moderates”.

  • QuoVadisAnima

    Yeah, right:  Perot, Nader, etc.  Deny history?  Our country works as a 2-party system – check our political structure and our history - and you cannot expect to change it in the few months remaining as you approach a finish line in a major election year.  Yes, 3rd party votes are throwaway votes.

  • QuoVadisAnima

    Since when is voting for president, voting for his religion?  And not voting for him gives the cult of death your de facto support!!!

  • Peter Nyikos

     There are numerous differences between Obama and Romney. Here is a partial list:

    – Romney will sign a bill  ending  Obamacare. Obama won’t.

    – Romney will push for school vouchers and choice. Obama killed it in D.C.

    – Romney will not cut Medicare to finance Obamacare. Obama is.

    – Romney will reform Medicare by using competition. Obama won’t.

    – Romney will encourage photo ID laws. Obama will veto them.

    – Romney will appoint conservative judges. Obama will name radical ones.

    With a slight modification of the first item, this is taken from a longer list at:

    http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/2012/03/24/morris-santorum-goes-over-the-top/

  • plowshare

     While America may be ready for a third-party candidate, there is no one that they can rally around in sufficient numbers to take the election away from Obama — and they might succeed in taking it away from Romney, whom I do regard as the lesser of two evils.

    Back in 1996 and 2000, I voted for third party candidates: although Dole was the lesser of two evils, he had no chance to win; and although the 2000 election was a cliffhanger, there was no doubt about which way my state would vote, so I decided to make a statement by voting for a truly pro-life candidate in both elections.

    But there is so much at stake in this coming election, I will probably end up voting for Romney.

  • MaryK

    Ron Paul is a Libertarian, whether he claims it publicly or not; he ran for President under the Libertarian banner several times, unsuccessfully, so tried a different tactic this time around under the Republican ticket without mentioning his past.

    As a Libertarian, he believes in Pro-Choice.  If you don’t believe that, go to your search engine and enter “Libertarian Platform”.  There’s a lot more interesting stuff in the 20 articles, like ending the Depts of Education and Energy, and espousing the individual’s complete right to do anything he pleases, with only minor interference from the law, as in murder and bank robbery.  Most anything else is allowed, within some minor limits. Oh yes, he respects the Constitution – at least his interpretation of it.

    Other than that – he seems to be a nice guy but I would not want him elected POTUS.

  • MaryK

    Dan – you said, “More people than ever are registered as independents, more than Democrats OR Republicans,” as a reason a 3rd party candidate can win.  I take issue with that. Just bc a voter is “Independent” doesn’t mean more votes for a 3rd party candidate. There has never been a 3rd party candidate I could envision as president. 

    I am Independent bc I’m sick and tired of all the dirty politics on both sides, and I can choose who I vote for based on their record, or on the fewest lies. This time around I would love to leave the spot blank – we do not have a good candidate, but i will vote while holding my nose, as others have written here.

  • Dan Marcum

    Not Perot, not Nader, they are both socialists. The constitution party has a good candidate: Virgil Goode, who will be appearing on every ballot in the U.S. because of his affiliation with the Constitution party, which is classed as a “major political party” because it has representation in a majority of states. (Other parties that will have candidates on the ballot in all 50 states include the Libertarian party, which has a pro-abortion candidate, and the Green Party, which has a socialist candidate.) Google Virgil Goode for more info on his candidacy.

    Our country does not work as a two-party system. We consistently are getting worse and worse candidates under the two-party system. I could barely vote for McCain last time, and I cannot vote for Romney this time. The only hope for our country is a solid third-party candidate, and due to the fact that this year has the highest volume of dissatisfaction with the two-party system, the general populace is ready for a third-party candidate, and that is why we should vote for one.

  • Dan Marcum

    MaryK, you said, “Just bc a voter is ‘Independent’ doesn’t mean more votes for a 3rd party candidate.”

    No, it does not. But it does mean that most people are fed-up with the two-party system. By showing them good third-party candidates, and helping them form their conscience, we can ensure that no Establishment candidate will win — because if people vote their conscience, neither Romney nor Obama CAN win.

    You said, “we do not have a good candidate, but i will vote while holding my nose, as others have written here.”

    I encourage you not to do that, because I do not want to see precious votes wasted when an acceptable third-party candidate is available. Vote your conscience, that is your moral duty. If your conscience can stomach another socialist term, then by all means vote for Obama or Romney. But remember that if on election night an acceptable third-party candidate gets only 4% of the vote and the unacceptable candidates get 96%, you will be responsible for part of that.

  • Dan Marcum

    I admire your courage in voting third-party, and I think if you reflect you will see that this is just such a time when that is necessary. “There is so much at stake in this coming election” — I agree. That is why we need to place it in the hands of God. Voting for Romney/Obama is not doing that. God can take a 4% chance and turn it into 100%, He has done it before. But if we all vote holding our noses and stifling our consciences, then it will not happen. This country will only be upheld if we vote the way God would. We may not have power to take a third-party candidate to the top, but He does, so ask yourself: given that His vote would decide the election, even for a third-party candidate, then who would He cast His vote for? And then tell other people to vote for that person and why. Do that, and you will be doing your part, and letting God’s power work. If on election night Romney or Obama wins, at least you will know that you did what you could to prevent it, and God was with you. We are not called to be successful — we are called to be faithful.

  • Dan Marcum

    Romney won’t do any of those things because he is a socialist. Obama promised spending cuts, he promised to oppose an individual mandate, and he promised to end the foreign interventionism — he didn’t do any of that because he is a socialist. Romney is the same way. He promises the moon, but if you look at his record, he has opposed all of that and done everything he could to put citizen rights under government control (e.g. Romneycare). He is not a conservative, but he has run an effective campaign based on conservative-sounding slogans, and that’s how he has convinced people that he would do all those great things. He won’t. He doesn’t believe in them and his record shows that. Voting for Romney is voting for Obama in a Republican suit. Don’t waste your vote — vote third-party.

  • MaryK

    Dan-
    Okay – i looked up the platform of the “Constitution Party” and i only have this to say, “Pfffft!”  While the segment on the “Sanctity of Life” is commendable (almost convincing me to cast my vote for good ole’ Virgil), the rest gets downright scary – much of it borrowed from their next door neighbor, the Libertarians. They would abolish almost everything, dept educ, energy, social security, medicare, welfare… on and on. Most of these changes would highly benefit the well-off, while even further impoverishing the poor.  Those with little or nothing would be entirely dependent on the generosity of those with plenty. “Buddy, can you spare a dime?”

    You might call the constitution party the opposite of socialism, but i think every evolved country needs a certain amount of socialism to be just.  Otherwise that country is reduced to “have’s” and “have-nots”.  Sounds a lot like Biblical times, huh? 

    Remember the Gospel story of the Pharisee who could feel justified in not supporting his aging parents by declaring his money dedicated to the Temple? Well, there you have it – there are many “pharisaical’ rich guys/girls who would thumb their noses at anything that would drain their bank-account.

  • QuoVadisAnima

    Any time someone sounds like an echo of George Soros, it should set off alarm bells!  Even if your accusations were true, as opposed to being plain & simple ignorant as they are (if Romney’s a socialist, then everyone who isn’t a libertarian is a socialist – oh, wait, I get it! :rolleyes:), it wouldn’t matter because the fact would still remain that Obama has a record of persecuting Christians, esp Catholics, & Romney does not.  We MUST stop these attacks on the Catholics & our Church, and unfortunately, Romney is the only one left with anything resembling the capability to stop him.

  • QuoVadisAnima

    Dan, stating that our country does not work as a two-party system shows a huge gap in your knowledge of our country’s history as well as political science.  If nothing else, do a little research on the MANY efforts of 3rd parties and you will better understand why so many are dismissing your exhortations to throw their vote away on a 3rd party candidate. 

    This election is too important for wishful thinking; we CANNOT afford to leave Obama in office or our religious freedom will be taken from us.

    Let’s get Obama out of power & then we can turn our attention to replacing Romney with someone better!

  • QuoVadisAnima

    And what did the Lord say to the devil’s suggestion that He throw Himself off the ledge because God would send His angels to catch Him?  You cannot put God to the test by voting based on your wishful thinking instead of rational reality – prudence is a Scriptural virtue.

  • Dan Marcum

    “Any time someone sounds like an echo of George Soros, it should set off alarm bells!” — Yes it should. I hope we haven’t reached a point where criticizing Romney equals mimicking Soros. 

    You said, “Even if your accusations were true, as opposed to being plain & simple ignorant as they are (if Romney’s a socialist, then everyone who isn’t a libertarian is a socialist – oh, wait, I get it!)”

    I’m not a libertarian. I’m a conservative Republican. I read and agree with the Republican platform more than any other party platform, and the reason I oppose Romney is because in my examination of his policies, I see him as an opponent of that platform and of our country’s government-reducing needs. I have done my research and I’ve followed the path of Romney ever since the campaign started. And when you look at his record and his policies, it is as left-wing as Obama’s. Take Romneycare as an example — it expands abortion, contains a birth control mandate, and requires that individuals purchase healthcare insurance or else face a government penalty. That’s socialism. It is a violation of the Constitution’s 14th amendment which guarantees freedom from purchasing-mandates (not to mention religious discrimination) under the equal protection clause. And that’s not the only socialist thing Romney supports: he also supports the bailouts (government take-over of business), the NDAA, and gun control policies that remove citizen rights and violate the 2nd amendment. He is a socialist to his core, and he only avoids that impression by running an effective campaign based on conservative-sounding slogans.

    “Obama has a record of persecuting Christians, esp Catholics, & Romney does not.”

    No, Romney shares that record. Remember the firestorm in Massachussetts over the birth-control mandate in Romneycare? In 2005 Romney required Catholic hospitals to provide contraception in violation of their consciences. Gingrich took him to task over this in this link: http://regator.com/p/254751507/gingrich_accuses_romney_of_waging_a_war_against/

    Romney is every bit the secular socialist that Obama is, and Christians should think twice before wasting their vote deciding between the two of them when there are perfectly acceptable third-party candidates on the ballot in all 50 states. Look up the Constitution party — its man will be on the ballot in all 50 states, and he is an acceptable candidate. If we beat the pavement for him now, (assuming Ron Paul drops out, and many people are against him due to what I think is unfair media reporting of his foreign policy), then we ought to all get out the vote for Virgil Goode because he will be on the ballot in all 50 states and his policies are more in line with the Republican platform than Romney’s are.

  • Dan Marcum

    Hey MarkK, you said, “As a Libertarian, he believes in Pro-Choice.  If you don’t believe that, go to your search engine and enter ‘Libertarian Platform’.”

    The Libertarian party is strongly pro-abortion, but Ron Paul was steadfastly opposed to that when he was their candidate, and it took great courage on his part to oppose a major plank of their platform. Read the Ron Paul Sanctity of Life Act and tell me he’s pro-abortion after that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctity_of_life_act

  • Dan Marcum

    Hey QuoVadisAnima,

    You said, “Dan, stating that our country does not work as a two-party system shows a huge gap in your knowledge of our country’s history as well as political science.”

    I have done my history. And in this present crisis, and with the opportunity we have from 2010, where substantial numbers of both parties disaffected and registered as Independents, and showed us all that a majority of people are fed-up with the two-party system, we can have confident assurance that a third-party candidacy can win — but only if we all join the effort. Romney and Obama are both unacceptable. We should all look to an acceptable third-party candidate, and see what we can do from that point.

    You said, “This election is too important for wishful thinking; we CANNOT afford to leave Obama in office or our religious freedom will be taken from us.”

    I agree that we can’t leave Obama in office, but we can’t let Romney get it either — the stakes are too high to do anything but put it in God’s hands. What we ought to do is remember that God is all-powerful, and has taken 4% chances and turned them into success in the past. And with His omnipotent power in mind, we ought to ask where He would place His vote, assuming it would decide the election (third party or no). And then, when we’ve decided who God would support, we should tell other people who that candidate is and why. That is the way to let God’s power work. If people vote their consciences, Romney and Obama cannot win. And if we all do our part, they won’t. If, on the other hand, we all stand divided against our conscience, then on election night Romney or Obama will get the election, and we will have to give an account to the Lord about whether we helped that or hurt it. For my part, I will do everything in my power to prevent Romney and Obama from getting the election, remembering that we are not called to be successful, but faithful.

  • Dan Marcum

    Hey MarkK,

    Thank you for checking out the platform. For my part, I am more in line with the Republican platform as well. The problem is, Romney is not. And Virgil Goode, the Constitution party candidate, is more in line with Republican ideals than Romney is. Take a look at Virgil Goode’s stances on the issues: http://www.goodeforpresident2012.com/the-issues.html

    You will find that most of the objections you had to the Constitution party don’t apply to him. For example: you said “They would abolish almost everything, dept educ, energy, social security, medicare, welfare… on and on.” His position on social security is: “We must preserve and protect Social Security.  Social Security is owed over two trillion dollars.  Social Security should be repaid and have real money in the Social Security Trust Fund and not IOU’s.” On cutting energy development, read his energy policy. It’s not what you think. On cutting education, he does not say all education should be cut, but rather it should be handed to the States and local communities, and only as part of that can the Department of Education be cut. It’s a much more reasonable position than Romney/Obama’s records on the issue.

    You said, “i think every evolved country needs a certain amount of socialism to be just.  Otherwise that country is reduced to ‘have’s’ and ‘have-nots’.” — Socialism does not remove “have-nots.” Job-creation does. Ronald Reagan said, “I believe that the best social program is a job.” He was absolutely right. The free-enterprise system does a much better job of creating opportunities for the poor than socialism does. Just look at Europe for an example. And that is the suggestion of Catholic social teaching as well — see Caritas in Veritate #32-33 where Pope Benedict highlighted the fact that access to jobs for those in poverty is the best way to bring them out of it.

  • Dan Marcum

    Hey QuoVadisAnima,

    You said, “And what did the Lord say to the devil’s suggestion that He throw Himself off the ledge because God would send His angels to catch Him?  You cannot put God to the test by voting based on your wishful thinking instead of rational reality – prudence is a Scriptural virtue.”

    And prudence would have us vote for Romney and send us faster down the economic cliff? I don’t think so. Prudence would not follow two shepherds whose idea of “leadership” is throwing you over a cliff. Prudence would say, I am going in another direction. This is not putting God to the test. It’s trusting that if we do what’s right, He will use our efforts for good. This is not a competition between who wants to follow God’s will — it is a competition between which effort is more likely to limit the harm that is coming to our society: voting for Romney, who is similar to Obama and whose policies lead quickly to our demise, or voting for a third-party candidate, and beating the pavement for him so that we can overcome Romney and Obama. And for me, I think the latter option is both more realistic (given what happened in 2010 with the rise of Independents) and more just.

  • Wslyjy

    Romney is a Mormon.  Mormonism is Luciferian at the core.  Like any good Morman, Romney will do what his church says.  You might as well stay home and not vote.  You really think your vote counts?  I agree, Obama is not good.  Romney will do no better.  Since when has any president made a difference or spoken the truth.  Maybe Reagan, Carter, definitely JFK.  Look what happened to him and his brother.  Nothing will will change.  Nothing will impede the NWO.  We made a mistake not to nominate Ron Paul.

  • MaryK

    Wslyjy-
    You are, of course, entitled to your opinions – but here are a few comments of mine in answer to yours,

    1) By these negative views of the Mormon faith, you are doing what thousands of Catholic haters do – attack the religion with single sentence put-downs without bothering to check facts or respect a person’s right to believe as he/she wishes.  Catholics should NOT follow the example of those who criticize or judge us unworthy of salvation claiming they know what evil is in our hearts.

    2) “Obama is not good. Romney will do no better,” – so stay home on voting day.
    Wow!  what a shame it is that we should be so handicapped and despairing of our democratic process that we cannot even make a choice between the lesser of two evils (as you claim them to be).

    3) “Since when has any president spoken the truth?” Well, maybe Reagan, who by the way was heavily involved in Iran-Contra, but let Ollie North take all the heat.  Carter? Well he made some good tries at being truthful and look what it got him – a single term.  JFK?  Well aside from multiple affairs in his personal life, he generally did a good job of POTUS until a bright sunny day in Dallas.

    I have only to search my own past to remember how opinionated I was about those who were different.  I was a dyed in the wool protestant believing there was absolutely nothing good in a Catholic, so was appalled when JFK was elected over Nixon in the early 60′s. None of my fears were founded on truth or reality and looking back from the present (and Catholic), I can see that JFK, even with his human faults and failings, was a better president than Nixon was a few years later.

    So, Wslyjy, maybe it’s time for you, and all of us, to again read the old best seller, “The Power of Positive Thinking.”  And as my mother once told me, “No one is entirely worthless – he can always be used as a bad example.” :)

  • Guest

    I am a Catholic Gentleman, and I am likely voting for President Obama, reasons are vastly simple, he got rid of the pre-existing conditions, my wife has MS, a pre-existing condition. The GOP has stated they will remove the healthcare, and look into this healthcare in a step by step method over a course of time – what does that mean? Simple FORGET ABOUT IT, they can take 190 years if they like. Now it is affordable – just a note to many – I work, but with the meds, docs, and testing costs can run over 200k – what I am I do – lock her away institution? or let her die? In the culture of Death are you for that. She’s not Catholic does that make a difference?

    Many people seem up in arms over the President, he’s no different that President Bush, except that he is Black. Let’s be honest cause I visit many catholic churches and KOC places and I hear the n-word about our President. This is mainly over race.

    While Mitt Romney flip-flops in each sentence, worth a half billion 18 or 20 billionaires give him money, why? They actual care about us the people, and the cherished Catholics? Oh please, if you believe that then Baptists really love you. The are groups of calling not only for the removal of the Healthcare Law but also the Civil Rights, stating each state/ town should be allow to vote on whether Black and minorities should be allow to free and vote, a vote taken out of the people’s hands, the same arguement for the Healthcare law. Are you for that – that is not racist.

    Again, like so many articles the CULTURE OF DEATH:

    America’s love affair with executions, and now in time when DNA can prove whether someone is really innocent. NAH kill them anyway. A unarmed teenager comes to your home at Halloween, foreign but legal you say Freeze but sadly it is 80 degrees out, can’t be cold and hot, so what do you SHOOT HIM. Lets see that 2 counts of culture of death, should we continue oh why not, Castle Defense, Stand Your Ground Defense, when the person is not unarmed - common theme Death. Killing the abortion doctors and threatening supporters with bomb and death threats – is considered okay – culture of death, mmmm?1274 Hate groups in 2011, that call for death of certain people. That number rises constantly since this article was published 2008 when at merely 149 – why a Black Man in a White House, telling white people what they may do. This is FACT is found at Southern Poverty Law Center. During the Presidential debates for GOP a question was asked, if a man dying of cancer needs treatment – free healthcare or let him die – the crowd clapped for DEATH. And in the moment when a mother’s life is endangered and an abortion can safe her life, no thanks let the mother die.Time re-think the usage of Culture of Death phrase?

  • Jeanna

     Roe
    was decided by a 7-2 Republican court. The ObamaCare decision was given
    by a 6-3 Republican court. And we’re supposed to believe we have to
    vote for Romney to get good judges?

  • Sheam

    vote for romney, i guess you want to see the  us worst shape.  we all will suffer.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/7RC2LZJAHX5PSEAYUA2R5FSMM4 EmilieC

    The third choice is don’t vote? I have an idea, how about a Catholic third party? When are we going to stop voting for evil, or less evil?

  • QuoVadisAnima

    Wow, I thought this letter’s author was as confused as he was confusing – till I saw him quoting the Southern Poverty Law Center and then it became so much clearer.  Hopefully he will re-think to whom he has given his trust.  Alas, he likely will continue to see the liberals as saviours until his wife gets on the waiting list – or more likely, the ‘not worth the expense of treating’ list, or most likely, the ‘we’re sorry but the govt has run out of money’ list…

  • Mamatea

    If I’m to vote Jesus and the bible it’s to vote for more social programs. How can a Christian say that Jesus commands to help the poor aren’t worth being law but his words on marriage are? A vote for either is a vote for greed. Both are evil. Both are the destruction of what kid of country his needs to be. How dare you say anyone will be judge for how they vote for a president. I doubt Jesus would’ve even voted in the first place, he had the poor to teach to and help

  • Ms-kirk

    Mamatea-
    I agree with you in many ways, there is no clear choice for President this time around.  A vote for Obama is a choice for a loss of religious liberty and the culture of death (abortion), and a vote for Romney is a vote to protect the rich and soak the poor. Even with the addition of Paul Ryan, there is the spectre of a choice to end Medicare and many other programs for the poor. Though Ryan, as a Catholic, may be against abortion, are we simply a one-issue people?  Vote against abortion, while further marginalizing seniors and the poor?

    I can’t see my way through this maze of greed vs destruction of the innocent. I appeal to God for wisdom to make the right choice.

  • Tina

    But Romney makes millions of dollars by investing in stericycle. Which disposes of aborted planned parenthood fetuses. This now becomes a very difficult decision for me.

MENU