My first piece published at Floyd Brown’s Westernjournalism.com

President Obama and Governor Romney:

1. How do you both reconcile the vast majority of American’s opposition to government mandated healthcare and taxpayer funded abortions with the fact that you both signed government run healthcare into law with individual mandates and abortion coverage?

2.How do you reconcile the fact that the vast majority of Americans oppose homosexual scoutmasters with both your opposition to legal bans on homosexual scoutmasters?

3.How do you reconcile the fact that the vast majority of Americans oppose homosexual “marriage” with the fact that you, President Obama, recently came out in favor of it and you Mr. Romney unilaterally, illegally, and unconstitutionally implemented it as governor falsely claiming the court forced you to?

4.How do you reconcile the fact that the majority of Americans claim to be pro-life with the fact that you, President Obama, support abortion on demand including even after a failed abortion and you, Mr. Romney, signed $50 co-pay taxpayer-funded elective surgical abortions into law as part of Romneycare (3 years AFTER your supposed “pro-life conversion”) and refused to sign the Susan B. Anthony and Personhood U.S.A pro-life pledges?

5.How do you reconcile the fact that the vast majority of Americans oppose laws that would force religious hospitals to violate their religious conscience by offering abortion services and distributing chemical abortion pills with the fact that you both forced Catholic Hospitals to do that very thing?

6.How can you reconcile the fact that the vast majority of Americans oppose homosexual adoptions, with the fact you support it, President Obama, and as governor, Mr. Romney, you forced Catholic Charities, the nation’s largest adoption and foster-care agency, to place children with same-sex couples or go out of business (which they eventually did?)

7.How can you both reconcile the fact that the vast majority of Americans feel that they are overtaxed with the fact that you support raising taxes (letting major portions of the Bush tax cuts expire), President Obama, and as governor, Mr. Romney, you opposed the Bush tax cuts and raised taxes and fees by close to a billion dollars which effectively, in addition to Romneycare, decimated the Massachusetts economy?

8.How can you both reconcile the fact that most Americans oppose homosexuals serving in the military with your opposition to “don’t ask don’t tell?”

9.How can you both reconcile the fact that most Americans oppose amnesty for illegals with your support, President Obama, for the DREAM ACT and your past support for McCain-Kennedy, Mr. Romney, as well as large parts of the DREAM ACT?

10.How can you reconcile the fact that the vast majority of Americans oppose homosexual, lesbian, and transgender “education” with the fact you support it, President Obama, and as governor, Mr. Romney, you sponsored and endorsed homosexual “pride” parades as well as boosted funding for homosexual “education” starting in kindergarten?

This article that has been circulating around the Internet essentially says that Mormonism is NOT another branch of Orthodox Christianity BUT that it is ok for Christians to vote for a Mormon for president by repeating the toxic liberal lie that “we are electing a president not a preacher.”

Of course what a candidate believes about The God of the Bible and His Son (God in the flesh) Jesus Christ and whether that candidate serves the Only True God is the single most important thing we can know about any candidate (or any man for that matter) since that fundamental view/belief influences where he believes our rights come from (either from The God of the Bible or from man), what he believes the central purpose of govt to be (either to protect God given inalienable rights especially the right to life or to create/regulate new rights regardless of whtether they are contrary to the “laws of nature and Nature’s God”) and how he will ultimately govern (either in accordance with the Divinely Revealed Law of God or in opposition to it).

So, yes, what a candidate believes about the God of the Bible and the extent to which that candidate governed in the past in accordance with those beliefs, is, in my humble opinion, the single most significant thing we can know about him (her).

I’ve heard it thousands of times.

“Gregg, you wouldn’t vote for Jesus if he were running.”

“Gregg, there are no perfect candidates out there. You have to choose the lesser of two evils.”

The implication in both these statements in regards to the 2012 Presidential Election is that those who won’t vote for Romney are “purists” with unrealistically high expectations about their political candidates.

Sorry. But this is a straw man argument.

Neither I nor anybody I know who is not supporting Romney has ever said that there is a “perfect candidate.”

Of course, any candidate has cast a vote or taken a position in the past which not everybody will agree with.

But as far as I am concerned, there are some things which constitute immediate deal breakers. I am fine with a candidate who may differ with me on what type of tax policy we should have or how to regulate immigration or environmental policy. But when a candidate is consistently wrong on the fundamental issues of why government exists, the rule of law, the sanctity of human life, marriage and the natural human family, I have a major problem with that.

The reason I don’t support Mitt Romney is not because Mitt Romney “isn’t perfect” but because Mitt Romney has been consistently wrong on those fundamental issues listed above his entire career. (48 months as governor)

So I don’t think I am “demanding perfection” when I expect the president of the United States to understand the primary Biblical role of civil government and abide by it. Perhaps because Romney doesn’t believe the Bible to be authoritative, Romney doesn’t believe in the Biblical definition of civil government (i.e., that government exists to reward righteousness and punish evil.) If he did, he would not have used his civil magistrate authority as Governor of Massachusetts to implement “laws” and “executive directives” contrary to the laws of nature and Nature’s God (implementing homosexual “marriage,” subsidizing child murder at 50 bucks a pop, forcing Catholic Hospitals to issue chemical abortion pills even though they were legally exempt, boosting funding for homosexual and transgender “education” starting in kindergarten etc…)

I don’t think I am “demanding perfection” when I expect that the president of the United States abide by his sworn constitutional oath to enforce the Supreme Law of the Land. If one looks objectively at Romney’s actual record, one sees that Romney has spent his entire career in government violating his sworn oath by signing in “laws” contrary to God’s Divinely Revealed Law which, according to the Bible, Lex Rex, St. Thomas Aquinas, Locke, Blackstone, the Founders and Martin Luther King, is “no law at all.” (i.e., Romneycare, $50 abortions, homosexual “marriage,” forcing Catholic Hospitals to issue chemical abortion pills, forcing Catholic Charities to place children with same-sex couples, opposing bans on homosexual scoutmasters, etc…)

I don’t think I am “demanding perfection” when I expect the president of the United States to defend the inalienable right to life, God’s institution of marriage and the natural human family. Not only hasn’t Romney defended life and marriage, but he has actually done more to destroy them than any other governor in the history of the Republic. Romney single-handedly implemented same-sex “marriage” falsely claiming the court ordered him to and signed a quasi-Socialist healthcare plan into “law” with $50 tax-subsidized elective surgical abortions including “partial birth abortions” (again falsely claiming the courts made him do it.) Implementing same-sex “marriage” and $50 abortions are the things liberal Democrats only dream of doing. And Willard did it all in less than 4 years!

So look, I don’t expect “perfection” from anybody running for public office, because I recognize that the only perfect person to ever walk this earth was God Himself in human flesh, Jesus Christ.

But I do think it reasonable for me to expect that any candidate running for any public office at any level or branch of government actually understands and is able to articulate the primary purpose of civil government, abides by the law (insofar as it is in harmony with God’s Divinely Revealed Law or “the laws of nature and Nature’s God”) and will protect and defend the bedrock foundations of Western Civilization (life, marriage and the natural human family).

In other words, I am not expecting perfection but I am expecting a consistent track record of getting the major things listed above right. The way I see it, if you can’t get the major job requirements right, I can’t hire you for the job.

And in regard to getting it right on the major job requirements of being Chief Law Enforcement Officer, Commander and Chief and Leader of the Free World, Willard Mitchel Romney doesn’t even come close.

So let me get this straight…Conservatives like me are supposed to get excited about uber-liberal, pro-abortion, pro-sodomy, Crony Capitalist, Mitt Romney’s VP choice, Paul Ryan, who voted for Bush’s Medicare Part-D Prescription Drug Benefit, No Child Left Behind, TARP, both bailouts, NDAA (indefinite detention for Americans without due process), full funding for Obamacare and Barney Frank’s Emplyment Non-Descrimination Act (ENDA) which would financially penalize religious organizations for not hiring homosexuals and transvestites? Seriously?

I just finished reading an amazing new book I would highly recommend called “The Religious Beliefs of America’s Founders: Reason, Revelation, and Revolution” by Gregg L. Frazer.

Contrary to popular opinion frequently promulgated by those on the Christian Right (such as David Barton and others in the “Christian America” camp) that the vast majority of America’s Founders were Evangelical Christians as well as those on the liberal Left who claim that they were mostly secularists and Deists, Mr. Frazer, utilizing extensive and thorough documentation from both public and private writings of 8 “Key Framers” (Adams,Jefferson, Franklin, Wilson, Morris, Madison, Hamilton and Washington), proves that they were neither Christians nor secularists/Deists but were actually a hybrid of the two which Mr. Frazer refers to as “Theistic Rationalists.”

Aside from Hamilton, who came to saving faith in Jesus at the end of his life, all of the 8 Key Framers rejected the Trinitarian view of God, the deity of Christ and the Resurrection. As Mr. Frazer demonstrates, based on the documented evidence, all 8 of the Key Framers would be what we call today “Universalists” as all of them believed that there were “many paths to God.” (As George W. Bush is on record saying as well.)

It was fascinating for me to see how their religious beliefs (essentially a mixture ofliberal Enlightenment thought, marginal Protestantism and Lockean political theory) influenced our Founding documents and our Republican form of government they had a significant hand in crafting and establishing. And I will be honest, it was also humbling to recognize that the key Framers were not Christians given the number of times I have publicly claimed they were based on what I thought to be trusted sources such as David Barton.

Here is the link to the book. Again, I highly recommend reading it and interviewing theauthor if you are in the media.

Is it not utterly absurd to think that the man who designed and signed into law the very model for Obamacare and whose very own advisers actually helped craft Obamacare can be trusted to rescind Obamacare as president?

Is it not utterly absurd to think that the man who signed $50 co-pay elective surgical abortions into “law” and placed a Planned Parenthood board member on his “healthcare” advisory board (with no pro-life member) 3 years AFTER his supposed “pro-life conversion” and who refused to sign the Susan B. Anthony and Personhood U.S.A pro-life pledges will oppose child murder and enforce the inalienable right to life for all innocent human persons as president?

Is it not utterly absurd to think that the man who unilaterally, illegally and unconstitutionally instituted same-sex “marriage” falsely claiming the court made him do it will fight to protect the God ordained institution of marriage if elected president?

Is it not utterly absurd to think that the man who supports state level ENDA laws that would force churches and other religious institutions to hire homosexuals, bi-sexuals and cross-dressers or pay a fine/go out of business and who sponsored and funded homosexual/transgender “Gay Pride” parades as governor and who opposes bans on openly homosexual scoutmasters and who increased funding for homosexual “education” starting in kindergarten will defend religious liberty and parents’ rights as president?

Is it not utterly absurd to think that the man who forced Catholic Hospitals to issue abortafascients in violation of Massachusetts Law which exempted religious hospitals is going to rescind federal laws that seek to impose similar mandates on religious hospitals nationwide?

Is it not utterly absurd to think that the man who supports the immoral, illegal and unconstitutional National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that was signed into law in the middle of the night on December 31, 2011 by Barack Obama that gives the president the power to detain and incarcerate any U.S. citizen without trial indefinitely is going to enforce the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution?

Is it not utterly absurd to think that the man who signed into law as his “signature achievement” a quasi-socialist “healthcare” plan that was endorsed by Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Planned Parenthood and Barack Obama that includes $50 co-pay abortions and who raised taxes and fees by almost a billion dollars which decimated the Massachusetts economy and who opposed the Bush tax cuts will help create a conducive environment for economic growth as president?

Is it not utterly absurd to think that the man who passed over Republican lawyers for three quarters of the 36 judicial vacancies he faced and nominated 2 open homosexuals and who has promised to nominate more judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts will nominate righteous God fearing judges who will rule in accord with the Constitution and the “laws of nature and nature’s God?”

Is it not utterly absurd to think that the man who supported Lieberman-McCain “cap and trade” will as president oppose it?

Is it not utterly absurd to think that the man who supports “comprehensive immigration reform” (i.e., amnesty) and who supported Bush-Kennedy-McCain amnesty will be tough on illegal immigration as president?

Is it not utterly absurd to think that the man who supports unconstitutional gun control laws such as the Assault Weapons Ban and Brady Bill and who bragged about the “severely restrictive gun laws” he was partially responsible for in Massachusetts will defend the 2nd Amendment as president?

Oh, my bad, I forgot…Romney is a Republican and Obama is a Democrat.

What was I thinking about?

Ok…Must remember what Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity tell me…

“Republican good. Democrat bad.”

“Republican good. Democrat bad.”

“Republican good. Democrat bad.”

“My baby-killing, pro-homosexual, crypto-socialist, crony capitalist RINO is better than your baby-killing, pro-homosexual, crypto-socialist, crony capitalist Democrat.”

“Romney good. Obama bad.”

“Romney good…”

To all Christian Pastors, Pro-Family Leaders and Christians in the Media:

Instead of accepting the false (and totally un-Biblical) choice that we as Christians must choose one evil man because he may be a little less evil than the other, why don’t we, as Christians, instead, reject both evils since “we must never do evil that good may come of it?”

Instead of saying, “my pro-abortion, pro-sodomy, Big Government Socialist Republican is better than your pro-abortion, pro-sodomy, Big Government Socialist Democrat,” why not put our faith in motion and use the public platforms God has given us to chart another path?

Imagine if all the Christian Pastors in America and Christian conservative radio and TV pundits who claim to be 100% pro-life, 100% pro-family, 100% rule-of law, used their pulpits and microphones to encourage other Christians to reject both godless elite-establishment approved candidates and to instead support a true Christian-conservative, true grassroots, true anti-establishment, true “outside the beltway” American Patriot?

I have to think that all the Christian Pastors and Christians and conservatives in the media combined could surely get at least 1 million people to get 100 of their friends to support such a candidate if the will to do so was there. No?

1,000,000 Christiansx100family and friends=100,000,000 total votes for the only true Christian conservative candidate in the race presently.

You say you are tired of lying, deceitful, flip-flopping establishment politicians who won’t abide by their Constitutional oaths?

Tired of compromising your core values and beliefs at the alter of winning elections that never seem to bear any real fruit?

Tired of doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result?

Perhaps it’s time to walk by faith in obedience to God instead of in fear and consider how you can be part of the solution by advancing as much righteousness as possible instead of supporting the “lesser of two evils?”

Perhaps it’s time to consider supporting this man and encouraging others to do the same and trusting God for the results?

Thoughts?

The most frequent question I have been asked in interviews discussing my new book co-authored with nationally syndicated radio host, Steve Deace, We Won’t Get Fooled Again: Where the Christian Right Went Wrong and How to Make America Right Again, is whether or not a Christian can support Mitt Romney if he becomes the GOP nominee.

As somebody who covered Mitt Romney on the radio in Boston when he was governor, I know too much about his pro-abortion,pro-homosexual “marriage,” pro-Big Government far left wing record to vote for him. But I would not condemn anybody else who chooses to given the fact that the current occupant in the White House is clearly hell bent on destroying any vestige of what currently is left of America.

Frequently, the questioner will respond that despite Romney’s liberal record that he won’t be as bad as Obama and that we need to support “anybody but Obama.”

While that may or may not be true, (I think a valid argument that a Romney presidency would actually be far worse for America)there are certain non-negotiables that, in my opinion, disqualify any candidate running for any public office but especially the presidency.

Here are 10 questions that I recommend posing to any candidate for whom you may be considering voting. As far as I am concerned, if they can’t answer these fundamental foundational questions concerning civil government and the rule-of-law correctly they are not qualified for any public office in any branch and at any level of government.

1. Do all of our rights come from God? (If “no” then candidate disqualified.”)

2. Is the primary purpose of civil government to protect inalienable rights? (If “no” then candidate disqualified.

3. Is the Supreme Court the final arbiter of what is/isn’t constitutional/legal? (If “yes” then candidate disqualified.)

4. Is Roe v. Wade the “law of the land?” (If “yes” then candidate disqualified.)

5. Do governors and presidents (and all other civil magistrates) have a constitutional obligation to ignore unconstitutional court opinions such as Roe, Kelo, Lawrence, Goodridge, California re:Marriage,Varnum, etc…? (If “no” then candidate disqualified.)

6. Is the inalienable right to life from conception to natural death the most fundamental right we as human beings possess? (If “no”then candidate disqualified.)

7. Does the president possess the Constitutional obligation, as the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the United States of America, to enforce the inalienable right to life (as guaranteed in the 5th and14th Amendments) for all innocent human persons from conception to natural death when individual states fail to do so? (If “no” then candidate disqualified.)

8. Do state governors, possess the Constitutional obligation, as the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of their individual sovereign state, to enforce the inalienable right to life (as guaranteed in the 5th and 14th Amendments) for all innocent human persons from conception to natural death? (If “no” then candidate disqualified.)

7. Can any law contrary to God’s Natural Law ever be constitutional or legal? (If “yes” then candidate disqualified.)

8. Can “homosexual marriage” or child murder by abortion ever be legal even if “voter approved” since no law contrary to God’s Natural Law can ever be “legal?” (If “yes” then candidate disqualified.)

9. Can any bill that ends with the 6 words, “then you can kill the baby” such as the “ban” on partial birth abortion (which has never actually banned the procedure and never saved even 1 baby despite raising a quarter of a billion dollars for many of the leading “Christian” and “conservative”pro-life, pro family and legal organizations) ever be considered “pro-lifelegislation?” (If “yes” then candidate disqualified.)

10. Will you advance/support state/federal Personhood Human Life Amendment to the Constitution that would outlaw all abortions from the very moment of conception since Personhood (written into the GOP platform by Ronald Reagan) is the core plank of the GOP platform? (If “no” then candidate disqualified.)

Some may call me a “purist” for setting such unreasonably high standards and focusing too narrowly on “social issues.” But I don’t think it’s unreasonable or “puritanical” for “we the people” to merely expect that our elected public officials be able to articulate who the Supreme Law giver is, what civil government’s central purpose is, and the role and enumerated limitations of each of the 3 branches of government.

Pretty basic Civics 101 stuff.

No?

If conservative Christians want authentically pro-life,pro-family, pro-rule of law representatives, isn’t it up to “we the people” to hold them accountable to ensure they uphold their sworn Constitutional oaths? Isn’t that the main requirement for self-government?

At the end of the day, if we have immoral and compromised politicians in office, we must acknowledge that we bear a significant portion of the blame for placing them in power, knowing even before we pull the lever for them, that they have no intention of abiding by their oaths of office based on their own records and public statements.

Do we not?

Poll after poll has demonstrated extremely high voter discontentment with both the current occupant of the White House, Barack Hussein Obama (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro), and his likely establishment backed GOP challenger, Willard Mitchell Romney.

Question: Could the reason that voters dislike both men with such intensity have anything to do with the fact that both men’s virtually indistinguishable records and positions are so far to the left of the American mainstream?

After all:

One man believes he will become god of his own planet some day and the other thinks he already is.

One man seeks to establish government run healthcare with individual mandates. The other actually accomplished it on the state level and had some of his very own consultants help design the federal program currently being debated at the Supreme Court.

One man seeks to implement government funded tax-subsidized abortion on demand. The other actually did it at the state level as part of his “healthcare” plan that was endorsed by Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton and Planned Parenthood.

One man says he opposes same-sex “marriage” but has signaled he will attempt to implement it in a second term. The other has already unilaterally, illegally and unconstitutionally implemented it on the state level as governor.

One man supports special rights for homosexuals, lesbians and transgenders. As governor the other boosted funding for homosexual and transgender “education” starting in kindergarten, sponsored “youth gay pride parades,” supports ENDA laws that would force religious institutions to hire homosexuals and transvestites or be fined or forced out of business, and forced the nation’s largest adoptive and foster care agency, Catholic Charities, to place children with same-sex couples even though he was not required to by law.

One man recently attempted to mandate that religious institutions cover contraception including “emergency contraception” (chemical abortion pills). The other one did it 3 years AFTER his supposed “pro-life conversion” even though Catholic Hospitals were legally exempt.

One man wants to roll back the Bush Tax Cuts for the “wealthy.” The other opposed the Bush Tax Cuts, supports raising taxes on the “wealthy,” and raised taxes and fees by close to a billion dollars as governor which decimated the economy of the small New England state he governed.

So the question so many have is whether there is an alternative to the two men we are told daily by the establishment media and elite political class are our only two choices for president.

“Pro-abort, pro-homosexual, pro-bailouts/govt run healthcare, corporatist candidate A” or “Pro-abort, pro-homosexual, pro-bailouts/govt run healthcare, corporatist candidate B.”

Pick your poison…

Demican or Republicrat…

I have a feeling if there were ever a year when truly independent citizen candidates could mount a substantive and authentic challenge to the mostly hand picked establishment candidates from the two parties at every branch and level of government, 2012 may be that year.

Perhaps voters not willing to accept the premise that we must choose between “establishment candidate A” and “establishment candidate B” may have other alternatives?

Here are two (Laurie Roth and Tom Hoefling) that are running for president who are both solidly pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-rule of law Constitutional Christian Conservatives who appear to fit that description.

I have a feeling there will be other independent grass roots Christian Conservative candidates running for other elected offices at all levels of government as well.

The question is whether enough voters are willing to place principle over party.

We will see in the coming months.