Responses to Mitt Romney

Challenged to explain why Mitt Romney isn't my favorite candidate for president 2008, I thought I'd do a little research. First I want to say that my post about voting by conscience was about conscience. I was not telling you for whom to vote or not. I only said I don't like certain motivations being disqualified for my voting by egotistical book-selling so-called Christian conservatives. I didn't attack Mitt Romney at all; I attacked the author of the book, A Mormon in the White House, Hugh Hewitt.

After scanning a few bloggers' indexes, and checking out an election central sort of website, I was getting frustrated. Didn't anyone have a list of what each candidate believes? First thought after that: the candidates can't make up their minds; how can anyone speak for them? I'm new to politics; forgive me for not knowing all the right places to find information. Secondly, I might try going to the source.

So I did. And the first thing I noticed about Mitt Romney's website is the quote at the top, calling America one in a family of nations. Excuse me if that bothers me. I don't like the UN. I don't like the European Union. I don't like talk of Global Communities or International Law. All this fuss over America acting unilaterally is ridiculous. We are a nation, and we do what is right and best for ourselves or those with whom we have treaties (and usually treaties are covenants: we do something in return for other countries doing something for us). People talking about immigration laws and border enforcement have mentioned that this defines sovereignty. If we are not in control of who comes to our country or who becomes citizens, we are no longer sovereign. Then again, that is what a lot of liberals want.

In all fairness, the quote is about the family: real families, like households. The point is that without strong families (husband, wife, kids) America is not strong.

Mitt Romney's biography highlights first his fiscal record as governor of Massachusetts, and then describes some of his accomplishments in education: "In 2004, Governor Romney established the John and Abigail Adams Scholarship Program to reward the top 25 percent of Massachusetts high school students with a four-year, tuition-free scholarship to any Massachusetts public university or college." I googled for more information about the scholarship, the primary question being whence the money comes. From the Massachusetts Office of Student Financial Assistance: "The John and Abigail Adams Scholarship awards non-need-based state-supported undergraduate tuition waivers to students who are awarded John and Abigail Adams Scholarship by the Department of Education." I'm not very keen on state-supported education, let alone "higher" education.

"Governor Romney has been deeply involved in community and civic affairs, serving extensively in his church and numerous charities including City Year, the Boy Scouts, and the Points of Light Foundation." Deeply involved Mormons get into some strange theology and religious rites. I'd say the cult-nature of the religion is undeniable - except people have denied it. Oh well. If you want to know about Mormonism compared to the truth of Christianity, I recommend Josh McDowell and Don Stewart's book, Handbook of Today's Religions featuring the first sentence: "A cult is a perversion, a distortion of biblical Christianity and/or a rejection of the historic teachings of the Christian church," or Let Us Reason.

From Mitt Romney's Issues page: "The defeat of this radical and violent faction of Islam must be achieved through a combination of American resolve, international effort, and the rejection of violence by moderate, modern, mainstream Muslims. An effective strategy will involve both military and diplomatic actions to support modern Muslim nations. America must help lead a broad-based international coalition that promotes secular education, modern financial and economic policies, international trade, and human rights." (emphasis mine) This seems to go back to a worldview of tolerance and relativism. I believe there is one truth and one way to heaven. I also believe that those who claim to follow a book that demands violence, are part of a religion started by a war-loving anti-Jew and anti-Christian man, whose leaders continually promote violence and refuse to disclaim the jihadists, and whose religion is known worldwide for being hospitable to terrorism - such people are not moderate. Study the history of Islam. Nor will tolerant diplomacy and a conversion to secular education cure them. General Douglas MacArthur got it right when he called for Christian (protestant, evangelical, Bible-believers) missionaries to hurry to Japan after World War II so that the pagans' lifestyle could be converted. The people of the Middle East will learn peace when they meet the Prince of Peace.

Concerning Asian commerce: "We must be ready and able to compete. This means ensuring our children are educated to compete in this new market, our trade laws are fair and balanced, and our economy and tax laws welcome new investment." and "We have to keep our markets open or we go the way of Russia and the Soviet Union, which is a collapse." It just so happens that the Federalist Papers, commentary on our United States Constitution written by men who were a part of that great document's (and law of the land's) formation, calls for the majority of government funds to be collected through tariffs and taxes on international commerce. When we as a nation threaten our own free market by lifting taxes on foreign goods and services (founded on close to slave labor) while taxing our own people's income and spending, we are ruining our ability to compete in America, let alone in international trade. America needs to stand up for itself in more ways than military.

It is possible, too, that the Soviet Union's economy collapsed not because of isolation, but because their people's work ethic was destroyed by socialism. Socialism historically produces a downward spiral. If you can get what you need without working very hard, and working hard will get you no more, what will you do with your life? Entropy increases unless energy is added. And socialism discourages expenditure of energy. The system only continues to function by getting capitalist money poured into it.

Taxation: "I said no to a tax hike; raising taxes hurts working people and scares away jobs. I also said no to more borrowing; borrowing just shifts our problems to the backs of our kids . . . Instead, I went after waste, inefficiency, duplication, and patronage." I like the idea of reforming the "labyrinthine" tax code. I would also wish that in addition to making government spending more efficient, we would make it more legal (only on things to which a government has legitimate claim - as in, cut out the funding for science, welfare, and abortion). Fortunately, on his "spending" issues article, Mitt Romney is quoted as follows: "Every legislator and politician knows this spending can't be justified, so why do they do it?" The gist of his position is that entitlements must stop, and even if legislatures will override his opposition to "pork" spending, someone has to say no. I vote the tax payers say "no," too.

Mitt Romney appears not to have decided anything definite about immigration. He states the obvious: America needs to make legal immigration easier and more attractive while decreasing the accessibility and attraction of coming here illegally. He does not address illegal immigrants already present or the security risk of not enforcing our borders.

Of America, Mitt Romney says: "We are self reliant, we respect human life, we are a religious people..." However, America is not particularly respectful of human life. Roe v. Wade stands and millions of infants have been murdered with the approval of law. A Florida woman was publicly murdered by starvation and no judge, doctor, governor, president, police, military, or legislature stopped it. The murderers and accessories today walk free. I heard people I know, good people who have been immersed in a culture that is anti-life, comment that starvation was a relatively painless way to die, and she wouldn't have had a decent life anyway. As if authority is given to us to order the hour of our deaths.

On marriage: "The court [in Massachusetts] forgot that marriage is first and foremost about nurturing and developing children." Except, biblically, is it?

Genesis 2:18, 21-24 "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

1 Corinthians 7:2-3, "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband."

Ephesians 5:22-25, "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;"

Perhaps the candidate takes the view of the Church of England's Book of Common Prayer, reason #1 for marriage: "Dearly beloved friends, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of his congregation, to join together this man and this woman in holy matrimony, which is an honorable estate, instituted of God in paradise in the time of man's innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union, that is betwixt Christ and his Church: which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence and first miracle that he wrought in Cana of Galilee, and is commended of Saint Paul to be honorable among all men, and therefore is not to be enterprised nor taken in hand unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, to satisfy men's carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding, but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God, duly considering the causes for which matrimony was ordained. One was, the procreation of children to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and praise of God. Secondly, it was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication, that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body. Thirdly, for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity: into the which holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined. Therefore, if any man can show any just cause why they may not lawfully be joined together, let him now speak, or else hereafter forever hold his peace." - The Form of Solemnization of Matrimony, from The Book of Common Prayer (emphasis mine)

This one is a deal-breaker. "I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother." His two sentences contradict. There is no "abortion is wrong except." We wouldn't kill already born babies because they were the children of rape, incest, or a pregnancy that resulted in the mother's death. (That last is the only, rare instance, specific examples for which I've never heard, that abortion would be necessary. If neither mother nor child could possibly live if the pregnancy continues - if the child is guaranteed to die anyway, I can understand the need. However, with medical technology as it is, premature infants have chances of survival. And in the late term, you're never going to convince me that an abortion is safer than delivery or a c-section.) If I had to write-in Matt Chancey for president, I would do that rather than vote for a man who believes in situational ethics of killing innocent babies.

Throwing money at public education seems to be Mitt Romney's solution, much like our current President Bush, also matching his belief that measuring progress will somehow help the education system. So far that's hurt. Now we teach the test. "It's going to take teachers, superintendents and parents talking to their legislators saying yes, we want more money of course ... but we also want changes in the way our schools are managed. We want our principals to have the ability to manage their schools." "It is time," his website summarizes, "to raise the bar on education by making teaching a true profession, measuring progress, providing a focus on math and science, and involving parents from the beginning of a child's school career." In the case of large portions of the population, an emphasis on math and science is impractical. Women who will spend most of their adult lives keeping homes and raising children need education that will be relevant to their tasks. Farmers do not need to know advanced mathematics. Maybe if we allowed children to be enamored with their Creator's orderly plan for the universe, if the laws discovered had meaning, students would pursue careers in the fields in which America is falling behind. Involving parents sounds good, but see who is passive and who is active in the statement. The quote indicates something is being done to the parents. The do-ers are implied to be the government.

Finally, most of the candidates or potential candidates have their problems. I'm not trying to pick on Romney. Actually, he's one of the most-likely-to-be-voted-for-by-Lisa-of-Longbourn candidates, so I am more obligated to defend my decision not to.

To God be all glory.