By Jon Christian Ryter
August 4, 2008
As the liberal voters in New Hampshire—one of the northeastern "Patriot States" where the Revolutionary War began in 1775—casually surrender their historic blood-fought liberty to communism by endorsing the most unpatriotic, un-American "citizen-of-the-world" for the office of the presidency, conservative evangelicals in the heartland of the nation are doing everything in their power to throw the election to presumptive Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Hussein Obama [D-IL]. They did so by demanding that GOP presumptive nominee Sen. John Sidney McCain [R-AZ] not pick former Gov. Mitt Romney [R-MA] as his running mate. Why? Because Romney is a Mormon. The excuse the evangelicals initially tried to use was that Romney has flip-flopped on outlawing abortion and on the issue of same-sex marriage. The allegations—at least today—are patently false as the evangelicals well know.
Evangelicals like novelist-preacher Tim LaHaye; Calvary Chapel pastor Rob McCoy; Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council; Gary Bauer, former FRC leader; anti-porn crusader Phil Burness who heads Citizens for Community Values; Focus on the Family founder Dr. James Dobson; Don Wildmon President of the American Family Association (and Gary Glenn, president of its Michigan chapter); William Murray, chairman of the Religious Freedom Coalition; Rick Scarborough, founder of Vision America; Janet Folger, president of Faith2Action; Matthew Staver, founder of the Liberty Counsel; Rob Schenck, founder of the Faith & Action Network and an assortment of lesser known pastors from lesser known churches and advocacy groups all denounced Romney as unfit for their support—solely because he is a Mormon.
When a Focus on the Family spokesman took to the airwaves and raised the question would a "President Romney" turn a blind eye to pornography, Burgess and Perkins in almost choreographed statements called Romney's failure to remove pay-per-view soft porn channels from the TVs in the guest rooms at the Marriott chain hotels when he was on their board "extremely disturbing." Perkins went a step farther than Burgess when he said that Romney "...must take some responsibility for the Marriott profiting from porn since he was a board member."
Gary Glen, the head of the Michigan chapter of Wildmon's American Family Association told the media that "...[t]his is just part of a broader pattern of concern over Mitt Romney's record of aggressively promoting abortion-on-demand, the homosexual agenda and gun control. We..." (meaning the Christian leadership) "...are judging Romney by his record."
Here is the Romney record. When he ran for the US Senate from "gun control" Massachusetts in 1994, Romney supported two gun-control measures that were opposed by the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America and other gun rights organizations in the United States. First, he supported the 5-day waiting period on gun sales. So do I. A 5-day wait does nothing except perhaps give a hothead who angrily goes out to buy a gun a 5-day cooling off period. Five days is adequate time for States and/or counties or cities to do an adequate law enforcement background check not only to determine if the gun buyer has a criminal record but has been involved in domestic disputes even if no arrests have been made. Just as some people should never be allowed to privately own an assault rifle, other people are a ticking bomb waiting to explode. Remember: all of the "Uzi moments" we have had in this country have been crimes committed by people with no criminal records. Romney also supported the ban on certain types of assault weapons. I disagree with Romney on this one in the face of US v Miller 307 US 174, 1939, where the majority (an 8-to-0 decision with Associate Justice William O. Douglas abstaining) opined that, based on the privileges standardized by the States in the 18th century (which was the superior government of the United States) the general public—not State-controlled militias—had to be as well-armed as its central government since the States themselves viewed the federal government as as much, if not more, of a threat to liberty than a foreign intruder on American soil.
When Romney ran against Ted Kennedy in 1994, he was endorsed by the Massachusetts Citizens for Life even though he ran as "pro-choice." They endorsed him because he supported parental-consent laws and opposed taxpayer-funded abortions. He thought government should be completely neutral on the issue of abortion and, therefore, was "pro-choice" when he ran for governor in 2002. In 1994 when he ran against Kennedy, he was branded by the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League [NARAL] as "pro-life." It should be noted that both Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush were pro-choice converts. As governor, Reagan signed into law the nation's most permission abortion law. In 1980, Bush ran for the Senate as a pro-choice candidate. Romney became a convert as governor when embryonic cloning was being debated. A stem-cell researcher told him that embryonic cloning was not a moral issue because "...they destroy the embryos at 14 days." Romney said the researcher's cavalier attitude struck him that mankind had cheapened the value of human life so much that it was no longer a moral issue to kill a human life as long as it was done within 14 days. Based on that one comment, his view on abortion-neutrality changed. He vetoed the embryonic bill and has been pro-life since that day.
In August, 1994, running against a sitting US Senator who advocated the rights of homosexuals and lesbians to marry, Romney told the Boston Globe that "...the gay and lesbian community needs more support from the Republican Party..." and that "...people of integrity don't force their beliefs on others, they make sure that others can live by different beliefs they may have." When he was interviewed by "Bay Windows," a homosexual and lesbian newspapers, Romney agreed that it should be up to the States to decide whether to allow same-sex marriage. In that interview Romney made the statement that came back to bite him in 2008. He criticized the Christian right "...which," he said, "imposed their views and moral codes on the Republican Party." Since 2005, Romney has been an outspoken proponent of a US Constitutional amendment to outlaw same sex marriage. Those are the facts about Romney. The issue that Christian right has against Romney is the fact that he's a Mormon. Everything else is smoke and mirrors. Let's make something crystal clear since these Christian leaders don't seem to understand it. The job of President of the United States—or that of Vice President—is not a theological job. And, while I would agree with their view that Mormonism is a cult, I would much rather have Mitt Romney's moral values a heartbeat from the Oval Office than I would Barack Obama's Marxist, anti-Caucasian, Islamic moral values in the Oval Office.
Calvary Chapel pastor Rob McCoy (a Mike Huckabee supporter) told the Washington Times that he would "...vote for McCain unless he does one thing. You know what that is? If he puts Romney on the ticket as veep. It will alienate the entire evangelical community—62 million self-professing evangelicals in this country, half of them registered to vote, are going to be deeply saddened."
Republican Party officials have opted to ignore the evangelical "old boys club" which successfully dominated the mindset of Christians during the losing Election of 2006 by encouraging them to sit out the election in protest to Bush not sealing the borders and evicting illegal aliens. One evangelical leader with close ties to McCain told Washington Times reporter Ralph Hallow that putting Romney on his ticket would cost McCain 7% to 10% of the evangelical vote. Enough, he said, to cost McCain a defeat in a close race with Obama. Wall Builders' David Barton, Eagle Forum's Phyliis Schlafly and Staver said they can rally their "supporters" around McCain if he picks someone other than Romney as long as that candidate has a pro-life record. Each of them have Huckabee in mind. And while Huckabee might pick up that 7% to 10% hard right evangelical vote, he loses the remaining 90% to 93% who rightly view Huckabee as "Clinton-light."
Republican strategists who understand this is a political race for the life of the United States of America and not a theological debate, know Romney is the right man to balance McCain's shortfalls. Romney provides everything McCain lacks. Romney is a successful fund-raiser—a skill that rough-edged McCain lacks. Romney has been thoroughly vetted—and more than most of theological types who have turned their noses up at him—has no skeletons that could embarrass either him, the campaign or the party. Unlike McCain who likes to say he's a Washington outsider, Romney actually is. Unlike McCain who is trying to remake himself into a conservative, Romney actually is, and has always been, one. Romney is a successful businessman in his own right and, thus, could be the economic voice of reason in a McCain-Romney ticket.
If I was on a steering committee looking for a new pastor for my church, Mitt Romney would be just about the last person (other than Barack Obama) I'd invite into our Pentecostal pulpit. On the other hand, nor would I invite most of the Christian "leaders" who were responsible for the evangelicals sitting out the Election of 2006, and who urged their followers not to back Romney during the primaries, leaving us with the political quagmire we have today—a real prospect of putting America's first anti-white racist in the White House.
Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!
It should be noted that an online poll conducted by former 2000 presidential candidate Gary Bauer found that, by a large margin, Romney was the first choice to be McCain's running mate by evangelical Christians. Sounds like the evangelicals realize they screwed up by sitting out the Election of 2006 and letting the far left seize control of Congress—and judicial appointments.
© 2008 Jon C. Ryter - All Rights Reserved
[Read "Whatever Happened to America?"]