Two Scenarios

     Perhaps the greatest obstacle for many conservatives when contemplating voting for a third party candidate is the potential for harm to the country should Obama be reelected. Since Romney is seen as the candidate most likely to prevent Obama's reelection, many conservatives feel a duty to support him regardless of his positions. This argument, although one could make a case that it is flawed, and such a case is made here and here, the idea is compelling enough to warrant a more complete discussion.

     The most obvious method of conducting an investigation of the merits of this argument is to produce competing scenarios, one if Obama wins and one if Romney wins, based on the candidates' past actions and a knowledge of American history, and to compare and contrast these scenarios. In making such a case it is important to to remember that, as Mark Twain said, "it is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future" and that God alone ultimately controls the future. At the same time, it is also important to recognize that such predictions, when carefully made and informed by the past, can be a useful tool in deciding on a course of action.

     In the first case, if Obama wins, certain things are obvious. It is extremely unlikely that Obamacare will be repealed should Obama be elected, particularly if Senate continues to be controlled by Democrats. An Obama administration would most likely enthusiastically implement the provisions of Obamacare. An Obama administration would also continue to advocate a more progressive tax system, emphasizing a move farther away from flat tax rates. How successful an Obama administration would be in this area would be determined primarily by the nature of Congress. Since the most likely situation is that the House stays Republican while the Senate remains Democrat, it is not at all likely that the tax code will change in any significant way, at least for the majority of people. We can also expect, should Obama be reelected, that spending will continue to rise unchecked. However, spending is less a result of the president's actions than it is of the actions of Congress so it is debatable what effect Obama's reelection would have.

     The country can also expect unequivocal support for abortion from an Obama administration in every way possible. Federal funding of abortion, both at home and abroad, would continue and any legislation limiting abortion would face a determined opponent in the White House. Obama's judicial appointments, both to the Supreme Court and to lower courts, could also be expected to share his liberal viewpoint, not just on abortion but also on marriage, religious liberty, and constitutional interpretation. These appointments could potentially produce negative effects for decades.

     On the other hand, if Romney is elected it is still highly unlikely that Obamacare would be repealed. Doing so would require not just having a president who favored its repeal, as Romney claims to, but also having a majority in both houses of Congress in favor of its repeal. As was mentioned previously, current polling suggests that the Senate will not change hands, meaning that a majority in at least one house of Congress will not favor repeal, even if Romney backtracked from his previous positions on the issue and favored repeal. With or without a divided Congress it would require that the Republican leadership be determined and unwavering in their drive to repeal Obamacare. Romney would not be able to muster that dedication to repealing his own brainchild. Under a Romney administration there is a chance that the tax code might be reformed to remove some of the burdensome taxes on businesses, however without both houses of Congress this is unlikely. Further, spending would probably continue to increase at current levels, given Romney's past record (as governor of Massachusetts spending increased dramatically every year while he was in office) and the lack of the moral courage to cut spending among "conservative" politicians. This would most likely be an improvement over an Obama administration, which could easily see an increase in the rate at which spending increases, but not a significant improvement.

     On social issues Romney would be, most likely, slightly more conservative than Obama. It can be argued based on his record in Massachusetts that he would be exceptionally socially liberal, but this ignores the fact that he would most likely give some concession, small as it might be, to those who elected him. He promises to reinstate the Mexico City policy and stop funding of abortions overseas. He also promises to stop funding of abortions at home, however this is also unlikely given the previously mentioned divided nature of Congress - putting a stop to funding for abortion overseas only requires an executive order, however putting a stop to funding at home would require an act of Congress. Romney has promised that his judicial appointments will be judges in the mold of Chief Justice John Roberts. Again, an argument can be made from his past history that he would not do this, since he appointed primarily Democrat judges in Massachusetts, but we will give him the benefit of the doubt. If this really was the case it would certainly be an improvement over Obama's appointments, but it would not guarantee the sort of judicial reform conservatives would like to see. In his ruling on Obamacare, with which Romney expressed agreement, Roberts demonstrated himself to be less of a strict constructionist than he he makes himself out to be. Further, he has only "hinted" that he might overturn Roe v. Wade, although that is more assurance in that regard than an Obama appointee could be expected to give.

     The discussion so far has been concerned primarily with the intent of the candidates, and only slightly with how effective they would be in achieving their goals. Of course, the president alone has relatively little control without the consent of Congress. Here the difference between the two candidates is actually far more marked. Historically speaking second term presidents are very weak - on election night they have reached the zenith of their career. Congressmen cannot hitch their fortunes to the president's star, and so are far less likely to side with the president in politically dangerous situations. Obama would be a second term president, whereas Romney would be a first term president. Romney would have a far better ability to implement his agenda than Obama. In fact, the latter would be extremely limited, in part by his status as a second term president and by in part, perhaps even more, by the fact that while the House is likely to be solidly Republican, the Senate will be only marginally Democrat.

     All things considered, although there are many commonly overlooked mitigating factors that would limit Obama's effectiveness, it seems clear that the immediate effects of an Obama presidency would be significantly worse for conservatism than that of a Romney presidency. However, such a short-term viewpoint would miss important long-term effects. If elected Romney would be the leader of the Republican Party for the next four years. He would have a significant impact on the direction of the party which most closely represents conservatives, dragging it to the left and destroying its credibility by associating it with his own unprincipled pragmatism, just as he did in Massachusetts. In addition, while Obama cannot run again, Romney would undoubtedly be the Republican nominee in 2016. Given his economic record in Massachusetts (abysmal doesn't quite cover it) it is very unlikely that he would win the presidency again in 2016. Whereas we are guaranteed four more years of Obama should he win, we are guaranteed four years of Romney should he win followed by either four more years of Romney or four years of someone even more liberal, probably Joe Biden. Any small gain that might have been made by Romney winning as opposed to Obama would quickly be lost by the hamstringing of the Republican Party and the negative effects of the longer period of liberal dominance brought on by a Romney victory.

     Now none of this constitutes the best reason to vote for Tom Hoefling, but it can provide a bit of peace of mind for those who choose to. A better argument for a vote for Hoefling, consisting of a similar analysis of the potential results should conservatives as a group decide to stand on principle and vote him into office, will be forthcoming in the next few days.

For a new birth of freedom!

Romney: Abortion Legislation not on the Table

     Yesterday Mitt Romney stated that he would not be in favor of any law regarding abortion. Since the only laws that would be likely to be passed are those banning or regulating abortion, he essentially reiterates his pro-abortion position at the national level. His position on abortion has been clear to those who follow politics, but he had yet to state it so plainly for a general audience. Perhaps the most disturbing fact is that even after so obviously taking a pro-abortion stance he continues to call himself pro-life.

     In the words of Tom Hoefling, "Mitt Romney has no intention of lifting one finger to stop the daily brutal slaughter of thousands of innocent, defenseless, helpless little boys and girls in this country. His every position guarantees the abortion on demand status quo. Honest observers have known this all along. Mitt Romney destroys our republican form of government with his gross judicial supremacist views, and his spurious claim that if a court says it, that’s 'the law.' He destroys the foundational moral, natural law premises of this free republic and our claim to liberty with his claim that abortion should be 'legal' if a democratic majority thinks it is okay. He doesn’t believe in God-given, unalienable rights, not even the supreme right, the right to live. He doesn’t believe in our intrinsic equality before God and the law, and disdains the explicit, imperative requirements found in the Fourteenth Amendment. Comments that defend Romney on this are shameful, especially since the man just spent an entire election season blatantly and obviously lying to the American people concerning the central moral question of our day. They are a clear signal of the extreme danger to the republic that Mitt Romney represents. Sadly, his supporters are becoming more and more like the man they are following. May God have mercy on us."

     Pro-life voters have accepted candidates who compromise for long enough. It's time we voted for someone who actually shares our beliefs, not someone who occasionally pretends to, and not very well at that, in order to advance his own political ends. There is only one Tier One pro-life leader in the presidential race - Tom Hoefling.

For a new birth of freedom!

Romney: Massachusetts Plan Applicable at Federal Level

     Mitt Romney has denied claims that he ever advocated instituting a plan similar to Romneycare on the national level, yet in the past he has indeed advocated such a plan at the national level. He said that "I think a lot of what we did could be applicable on a national basis. My preference, however, is not to have a one-size-fits-all plan pushed on all the states, but instead to give the states flexibility in creating their own plan." He made it clear that allowing states to set their own standards for health insurance, and in doing so following the Constitution, was merely a preference. He went on to add, disingenuously, that "Our plan did not include a government insurance plan. We did not put together a government-insurance product that was then sold to individuals. Instead, we relied entirely on private market-based insurance plans to help people get insurance. I think that’s a much better model." In the context of a discussion of Obamacare that statement is irrelevant - Obamacare also avoids establishing government-insurance, instead forcing the individual to purchase private insurance.

     The fact that Romney would accept, and in the past advocated, a plan similar to his Massachusetts plan at the national level speaks volumes about his principles (or lack thereof). Romney's plan in Massachusetts alone resulted in a 7.3% increase in the state budget in 2010 and a 42% increase in the state's overall costs for health programs. Romney's plan was not fiscally conservative in Massachusetts, and should he implement a similar plan at the national level, as he has said he will do (repeal and replace) we have no reason to expect that that plan will be fiscally conservative, either.

     Romneycare truly was the blueprint for Obamacare. The two are similar in their disregard for the principles of good government, for the law of the land (the U.S. Constitution in the case of Obamacare, the Massachusetts constitution for Romneycare), and in the fact that, so far, they have been failures. We cannot expect a marked difference between Romney and Obama when everything in the past records of both men suggest they will be exceptionally similar.

For a new birth of freedom!

Romney: Abortion "Settled in the Courts"

     According to Mitt Romney, "Democrats try to make this [abortion] a political issue every four years, but this is a matter in the courts, it's been settled for some time in the courts." Romney is an enthusiastic advocate of stasis on abortion. He is not pro-life any more than any other politician who seeks to continue abortion is pro-life.

     Romney, the supposed champion of the pro-life cause in this year's election cycle, is unequivocally pro-abortion in many cases, and in all others simply wishes the issue would go away. He claims to plan to appoint pro-life Supreme Court justices, however, even after his "conversion" on abortion he appointed almost exclusively pro-abortion judges. Further, since the Supreme Court has failed to overturn even the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision, widely recognized as the worst decision from that body, leaving the issue of abortion to the courts is essentially avoiding the issue entirely: Roe v. Wade will not be overturned by the Supreme Court without outside action influencing the court, thus Romney is pro-abortion in every practical sense. Tom Hoefling, on the other hand, has consistently taken a stand for the life of the unborn. The choice could not be clearer.

For a new birth of freedom!

Conservative?

     Romney has been praised in circles on the right for his recent debate performance, in which he thoroughly demolished a somewhat vacant Obama, leaving him the clear victor on the platform. However, conservatism did not win as Romney did. While Romney claims to be a champion of conservatism, his statements did match that claim. For example, he lauded Medicare, a product of Lyndon B. Johnson's ultra-liberal Great Society program, and accused Obama of cutting the program - hardly something a conservative would do. Further, he again supported his own plan for government-mandated universal healthcare in Massachusetts at the national level, as he has in the past.

     The race between Obama and Romney is not, as it has been made out to be, a contest between a conservative and a liberal. It is rather a contest between two liberals of the most effective means of instituting liberalism. The choice between the two of them is no choice at all. The only choice for those who wish to preserve conservatism for future generations is Tom Hoefling, the only true conservative in the race.

For a new birth of freedom!

Differences

There are some differences between Obama and Romney, however similar the two may be.

• Obama is pandering to an urban liberal demographic, Romney is pandering to a rural and suburban    conservative demographic.

• Obama is black and rich; Romney is rich and white.

• Obama hasn't given anything but lip service to same-sex "marriage," while Romney helped institute it as governor of Massachusetts.

• Obama can't make conservatives support what they hate, Romney can.

• Obama didn't wage a well-funded and dishonest smear campaign against a number of prominent conservatives, Romney did.

• Obama hasn't corrupted the pro-life label by pretending to be pro-life, Romney has.

• Obama was not able to push through unapologetic funding of abortions in his healthcare plan, Romney was.

• If elected, Obama wouldn't be the head of the Republican Party, Romney would.

• If elected, Obama would face opposition from a Republican Congress, Romney wouldn't.

• If elected, Obama would not be eligible for reelection in 2016, Romney would.

The choice between Obama and Romney is no choice at all. When presented with two unacceptable choice, it is important to choose neither. Fortunately, there is an acceptable choice - Tom Hoefling, who has consistently stood for life, liberty, and the principles that made America great.

For a new birth of freedom!

Why no Christian Should Vote for Romney or Obama

     This post will present an argument explaining exactly why no professing Christian, whatever his political affiliation, should vote for either Romney or Obama. This argument is applied specifically to the 2012 presidential election, but in reality it could be generalized to any election. A line of reasoning is presented establishing first that both Romney and Obama would pursue policies which any Christian should consider evil, and second that that fact alone ought to be enough to prevent any Christian from voting for either candidate.

The Most Dangerous Thing About Mitt Romney

"This is the most dangerous thing about Mitt Romney: he compromises people's moral integrity. And it is the personal moral integrity of the people that is the basis for our form of government and our claim to liberty. 'We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.' -- John Adams" Tom Hoefling

For a new birth of freedom!

Romney and Obama the Same

     What if there wasn't a difference between the two major candidates?

     We can choose between Obama and Romney, who are essentially the same, or we can stand outside the box and choose someone who truly represents us.

For a new birth of freedom!

Republican Congress Funds Obamacare

     Republicans may talk a good talk when it comes to conservatism, but when it comes time for them to walk the walk things get a bit dicey. House Republicans passed a continuing resolution funding Obamacare, including the unpopular HHS mandate, which requires all insurance providers to provide access to sterilization, contraception, and abortifacients free of charge. It also does not restrict funding to Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the country.

     The House of Representatives controls which funds are appropriated and for what. It, as the body which most closely represents the will of the people, stands as the last defense against irresponsible and immoral spending. While the Republicans in the House may have claimed to oppose Obamacare and funding for Planned Parenthood, they could have acted and refused to include those programs in the continuing resolution yet they did not. It is not difficult to see that their true goal is not to advance conservatism and better the country but to dupe a large portion of the electorate. These are the men and women many conservatives claim will keep a "President Romney" in check. How can we expect that they will risk political suicide and stand up to the most powerful figure in their own party when they won't even take the opportunity to excite their base by standing up to the most powerful figure in the opposing party?

     The Republican leadership is corrupt, unprincipled, and concerned only with gaining and holding power and prestige for themselves, yet many well-meaning conservatives will blithely troop to the polls to vote to keep this group of unscrupulous egomaniacs in power, who gladly provide lip service to conservatism but betray at every opportunity. It would be far better if those conservatives would utilize their energy to send the message that their country is more important than their party, and that principle matters more than politics. Vote for a man whose rhetoric supporting America's founding principles has not only been matched but exceeded by his actions in defense of those principles--Tom Hoefling.

For a new birth of freedom!

Romney and Roe: A Comparison

     Mitt Romney has held many positions on abortion. He was pro-choice in his run for senate in Massachusetts, definitely not pro-choice when he considered a run for governor in Utah, pro-choice again when he ran for governor of Massachusetts, and came around to "calling" himself pro-life (his words) while eyeing the Republican presidential nomination. Since his conversion, however, his actions have been far from reassuring. He forced hospitals to provide abortifacients, apparently violating his belief that life begins at conception and should be protected, and oversaw the implementation of a healthcare plan that provided for abortions with co-pays of between $0 and $100. In the Republican primaries he strenuously maintained that he never was pro-choice and announced that his current position was that abortion was wrong except in cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother, but that the decision to allow or regulate abortion should be left to the states. He further stated that the only way this could be done would be to have the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade, since the Supreme Court was, in his mind, the ultimate arbiter of Constitutionality. It should be noted that, since the Supreme Court hasn't even overturned Dred Scott v. Sandford, it is highly unlikely that it would overturn Roe v. Wade at any point in the foreseeable future. Since the only way that decision was changed was to amend the Constitution, and Romney opposes the Human Life Amendment, Romney's public position, for all intents and purposes, is pro-abortion, whatever private qualms he may have had.

Romney Opposes Full Repeal of Obamacare

     Reuters reports that Romney said recently that he would not repeal all of Obamacare, instead cherry-picking the bill, repealing some parts and keeping others. Although that is precisely what he said he would do during the primary, many conservatives were able to imprint their own desires onto Romney and had successfully convinced themselves that he favored full repeal. In reality, just as Romney favored a plan essentially identical to Obamacare in Massachusetts, he still favors universal, government-mandated healthcare. His differences with Obama are merely cosmetic.

     Conservatives who vote for Romney aren't letting themselves be fooled, they are fooling themselves. Romney doesn't even lie about what he plans to do--ignore social issues, continue the same failed foreign policy, and keep some or most of Obamacare--almost all of which is antithetical to conservatism beliefs. The only candidate in the race who truly recognizes the value and meaning of the Constitution and the principles of limited government on which the country was founded is Tom Hoefling. Don't fool yourself--vote for the clear conservative choice.

For a new birth of freedom!

Know the Past

"History by apprising [citizens] of the past will enable them to judge of the future; it will avail them of the experience of other times and other nations; it will qualify them as judges of the actions and designs of men; it will enable them to know ambition under every disguise it may assume; and knowing it, to defeat its views." --Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 14, 1781

Is Mitt Romney Pro-Life?

Is Mitt Romney pro-life?

Not for any child if a court says that they don't deserve equal protection.

Not for any child if a democratic majority says that they don't deserve equal protection.

Not for any child if a particular state says that they don't deserve equal protection.

Not for any child of rape.

Not for any child of incest.

Not for any child if the mother claims that the pregnancy might cause her a hangnail.

So, no, in no practical sense is Mitt Romney pro-life.

Do not settle for a candidate who personally "pro-life" and practically pro-abortion.

For a new birth freedom!

Election Projection

     Romney may have pulled close to Obama in nationwide polls, but projected electoral college tallies still leave him well behind. Tellingly, although the projection shows Romney losing handily, it shows Republicans gaining seats in the Senate, holding steady in the House, and gaining governors. The country is obviously ready for true conservatism. Romney is not falling behind because the country believes he is a conservative, but because it does not.

For a new birth of freedom!

Romney did it First

     Conservatives have been almost universally outraged over the passage of Barack Obama's signature healthcare legislation, "Obamacare." However, many of these same conservatives enthusiastically (or not-so-enthusiastically) support Mitt Romney, not realizing or not caring that Romney's signature healthcare legislation "Romneycare," is, according an adviser who held a leading role in designing both programs, the same in every major aspect. Obama did it, but Romney did first.

"Romneycare" the Same as "Obamacare"

     Jonathan Gruber, the architect of Mitt Romney's "Romneycare" in Massachusetts confirms what we all knew in this article from Hot Air: "Romneycare" is in all significant respects the same thing as "Obamacare." While it was glaringly obvious that many extremely odious aspects of the two plans were the same--notably mandated coverage of contraceptives, abortifacients, and all abortions, regardless of the religious conviction of the insurer--were the same, Gruber's statement provides further confirmation, as he advised both Romney and Obama while they devised their plans.

The Candidates' Positions on Abortion

     Few political issues are more compelling than abortion. Even after multiple foreign wars and an economic collapse abortion holds its place among the most pressing problems of the day, and with good reason. The taking of the life (one can call it nothing else) of the most defenseless in society is a crime not only against that life but against the future and against the ideas of freedom and equality of opportunity that fueled the birth of America. Although the majority of Americans do not support abortion, and more than two-third believe abortion after the unborn child can feel pain (sometime before fourteen weeks according to the latest research) should be illegal, surprisingly few politicians are willing to “speak out for the one who cannot speak, for the rights of those who are doomed.” This year's presidential candidates are, with one notable exception, no different.

     Incumbent president Barack Obama has made no secret of his support for abortion. Not only does he openly support making abortion legal, he even opposed a bill requiring that babies who survive abortions be provided with medical care rather than being left to die. In fact, he promised to make preserving “women's rights” to abortions a priority as president. Although supports abortion, he is in favor of banning late-term abortions, with the usual exceptions for cases involving rape, incest, and the life of the mother. Obama also supports public funding for abortions, although with the exception of the abortifacient drugs covered under the HHS mandate and federal funding for Planned Parenthood (the largest abortion provider in the country), he has not been successful in implementing his desired policy while president. Although some have described him as the “most pro-abortion president,” this is not the case. His positions, however repugnant to those who value the lives of the unborn, is hardly exceptional among Democrats. Arguably Clinton's positions were significantly more pro-abortion—after all, Clinton vetoed a bill banning partial birth abortions while Obama, at least in theory, would have supported it. He has been one of the more pro-abortion presidents in history, but not the worst.

Tragedy Reveals Flaw in Gun Control Policy

     Yesterday's tragic shooting in a Colorado theater reveals an awful flaw in the current policy, supported by both Obama and Romney, to reduce gun violence. It has been thought that the way to do so is to reduce the number of guns. In the interests of protecting the most vulnerable members of the population, school and university campuses, along with post offices, banks, and other important facilities, have been designated as gun-free zones. These efforts, although put into effect with the best intentions, are horribly misguided. 

The Real Problem with Bain Capital

     Residents of the Dallas-Fort Worth area may have noticed that in March of 2012 popular talk radio host Mark Davis was suddenly taken off the air. His contract ended, and rather than attempting to keep one of local radio station WBAP’s most successful personalities Clear Channel Communications, which had shortly before bought WBAP, simply ended his show. WBAP has yet to fill the hole left in their programming by the end of the Mark Davis Show with anything other than a lackluster show known as “WBAP Talk.” The content is as exciting as the name. Further confusing listeners in the DFW area, Laura Ingraham, another highly rated (and better known) talk radio host, was removed from the air around the same time. Neither program was flagging as far as listeners were concerned, and in fact the Mark Davis Show was one of the more popular on WBAP. It would appear that Clear Channel acted against its own best interests—a very odd decision for a profit-driven company. With this in mind, it is worth considering the possibility that something deeper was at play.