This website is a member of Liberty Alliance, which has been named as an company.

Tax reform vs. Romney

Written on Saturday, December 3, 2011 by

mitt romney

President Obama is now touting his “We can’t wait” demagoguery in his end-run around Congress.  But we really can’t wait for is a total overhaul of this current confiscatory and time-wasting tax code.   In a previous column named Taxing the “rich”? No, ruining America!, I documented both how high tax rates throttle the economy, so turn out to bring in less revenue, and that simply complying with all the convolutions in the tax code wastes over $100 billion.

Alternative taxation systems

A number of the current Republican candidates have proposed some sensible reforms, some a lot better than others.  Michele Bachmann has some very good ideas, as would be expected from my favourite candidate.  Herman Cain’s famous 9-9-9 plan, as I’ve written, is a nice idea but problematic in the long run.  Rick Perry’s flat tax is a good step in the right direction, because the flat tax is the real “fair” tax.  Newt Gingrich has a bolder and better flat plan, as shown here (admittedly a biased source).

Bachmann, Cain and Gingrich rightly support lowering company tax as well, from its current 35%, the highest in the (Western) world.  They point out that this would make America a much more attractive place to set up business, in contrast to Obama’s “laziness” in business friendliness.  It would also encourage American business to return the well over 1.2 trillion dollars they keep overseas than see over a third of it gouged by our greedy government.

But one candidate who proposes very little change is Mitt Romney (see how Gingrich’s bold plan eclipses Romney’s), despite  his verbose economic policy document that is 160 pages long.

Romney’s flip-flops

Romney is certainly one of the leading Republican candidates, although he can’t seem to win over 75% of Republicans.  But his convenient flip-flopping on many issues, such as abortion and global warm-mongering, doesn’t inspire many Patriots.  We also must wonder how much he has really flipped from fanatical pro-abort rhetoric to pro-life, since Romney won’t sign abortion pledge.

Patriots, also remember how Romney forced homosexual “marriage” on his state (see Patriot column Romney Is What’s Wrong With The Republican Party.  Also, how can we really expect him to repeal Obamacare when it’s so closely modelled on
Romneycare.  Yes, he claims that it was only a state issue, and states are “laboratories of democracy”, but this lab experiment has failed miserably and he won’t admit it.   This really shows that Romney is no conservative at heart, since he still believes in the fundamental liberal notion that government has the right to force people to buy health insurance.

Romney’s tax blunders

For this column however, the main concern is Romney’s love of high taxes (or “fees” as he called them when he was Massachusett’s Governor).  Back in 1996, Romney lost a senate race to the late, unlamented Teddy Kennedy, despite Romney’s best efforts to sound even more pro-abort than even the ultra-left Kennedy.  Just after that, Romney spent $50,000 on full-page ads in Boston, Iowa and New Hampshire newspapers to oppose Steve Forbe’s flat-tax idea.

Gingrich said, “The Forbes Flat Tax is more than a big idea. It is the right idea and it is a doable idea.”  A lot of Gingrich’s ideas show this influence

But as seen below, the Romney ad culminates in class warfare demagoguery of which Obama would be proud: “The Forbes Tax isn’t a FLAT TAX at all — It’s a TAX CUT for FAT CATS!”  Now, when he wants the Presidential nomination, he has toned down the rhetoric a little, but has he really changed?

So let’s analyze these claims—it will be good practice when Obama tries them next time, just as he tried Romneycare.

First, the “fat cats” he names like the Kennedys, Rockefellers and Forbes: this is a dishonest bait-and-switch tactic, confusing income with wealth.  These people have a high wealth, and the current high income taxes don’t touch it.  This is why we have “patriotic millionaires” who call for higher tax rates on themselves—but refused to donate more to the government voluntarily when given the chance in this video clip:

Rather, they punish hard workers who aspire to be wealthy (see more in the Patriot column Taxing the “Rich” – Part 2).  The same, of course, applies to Obama’s obsession with taxing “millionaires and billionaires”, when his tax gouges start for incomes of $250,000 families who are not necessarily “rich”.

Second: “0% tax on dividends”.  Completely false.  Dividends are paid to stockholders in a business, who are by definition part-owners.  Their business profits, if any, are already taxed at the rapacious corporate rate of 35%.  Dividends are distributed from these after-tax dollars. Any further tax on them piles this on top of the 35% already paid.

As I’ve written earlier, Australia’s tax code includes “dividend imputation”, which imputes (credits to the taxpayer’s bill) the tax already paid, precisely to avoid double taxation.  This is eminently fair, and I advocated it in a previous Patriot column.  However, failing that, an alleged zero percent tax on dividends has the virtue of simplicity, and avoids piling still more taxes on top of the 35%.

Third: interest.  Think about what happens when you lend money for a set time.  In that time, this money is no longer available for you to spend freely on things you want.  So classical economists recognized that there must be some compensation for lenders, i.e. an interest payment.  Furthermore, there must be compensation for the risk that a borrower might default, especially after  Obama’s gangster government decreed that his union supporters would be paid ahead of legally secured creditors to reward his union allies.  And it compensates for inflation.  Without interest, lenders would not bother making this financial sacrifice.

But politicians don’t care if their policies kill the goose that lays the golden eggs they steal—as long as the goose dies only after their next election.  But Romney, in common with the Left, is ignorant of this important role of interest.  So it is not only taxed, but also taxed at the lender’s highest marginal tax rate.

Fourth: investment profits or capital gains.  A high rate on capital gains will discourage capital creation.  As Milton Friedman pointed out, if you punish those who have capital, then it destroys the incentive to build capital in the first place.

Also, like interest, there is an opportunity cost: money you lock up in capital, such as stocks or real estate, is money that can’t be used to spend on things you want to buy.  And here there is a severe risk of capital loss, as the recent stock market and property crashes should have demonstrated.  High capital gains taxes punish risk-taking and entrepreneurship.

Another point is that the capital gains are realized in the one year they are taxed, yet the capital has been tied up possibly for many years.  A lower rate for long-term gains reflects this difference between this and income.

Added to all these problems is one glaring unfairness: the gains are not indexed with inflation.  Historically, most capital gains taxes have been gouged from sales on properties that increased in nominal dollars, but have not increased in purchasing power.  Even worse, some have been taxed for sales that have lost real value.  But such manifest injustice evidently doesn’t bother the tax gougers on the Left or Romney.

Finally, it’s a crass tax, if the object is, as it should be, to raise revenue rather than pander to redistributionist class envy.  Stephen Moore, a Wall Street Journal editor, points out in the Library of Economics and Liberty:

“For all the controversy surrounding the tax treatment of capital gains, that tax brings in surprisingly little revenue for the federal government. From 1990 to 1995, capital gains tax collections were between $25 billion and $40 billion a year, less than 3 percent of federal tax revenues. During the Internet boom, when stock gains were huge, capital gains tax collections peaked at $119 billion in 2000 before rapidly falling back below $50 billion.”

Voting for a RINO?

As shown above, I think that if Mitt Romney wins the GOP nomination it would be a terrible thing.  But if he does, conservatives should hold their noses and vote for him anyway, as I’ve said before on Patriot, rather than waste their vote on a third party.   A terrible candidate is still a vast improvement on the catastrophic Community Organizer in Chief.  Romney at least doesn’t support post-natal infanticide as Obama does.  Romney also proposes to lower corporate and personal income taxes, as well as eliminate the death tax that harshly penalizes saving for one’s family (see economist Arthur Laffer’s view, Spend It in Vegas or Die Paying Taxes: A 0% tax on carousing, but 55% on thrift, and Friedman video clip above).


Tax reform is a major priority for the next President and Congress.   It is vitally important to understand the crucial roles of interest, dividends and capital gains to refute the high-tax demagogues.  Sadly, among these demagogues is one of the leading Republican candidates, Mitt Romney.  So the coming Republican primaries are too important to miss.  If Romney gets through the primary, thanks to conservative apathy and vote-splitting on minor candidates, then all we can do is vote for him just to get rid of Obama.

Posting Policy
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

  • nvrpc

    You can bank if Obama wants it and it can’t wait it will only be to the benifit of his socialist paristic followers and will cost the working class people higher taxes of which none of us want or needs and it’ll have something to do with robbing from the rich to give to the welfare recipients and illegal aliens. Get Odumbo off US soil ASAP and sent him back to his raghead origin.. You wnat change that’yy work go to may name, and click on The ~ 8 2 2 ~Plan
    Immediate Abolishment of the IRS
    Killing Socialism, Abolishing Parasites, Curtailing Crime
    Dead In It’s Tracks

  • fliteking

    Romney was a consultant for Obamacare – – – an outrageously expensive mandate by the government.

    Do you really think we can trust him with any revision of the tax code?

    Troll replies are welcome – – – will gladly give you the “Malkin” treatment.

    • Sherrie

      The butchering of the truth never ends. Try deer hunting with Ltjg. That would be a better sport that demagoguing with Nathaniel.

  • Tony N

    I got Booted off NEWTs Facebook page and unfriended for posting the question below and that question was generated from this Video , Please forward the video to the time frame 11:40,

    Hi, I am wanting to cover everything , and I Want to Know what NEWT is going to do about the WTO free Trade agreement thats been the fundamental failure of the USA last 15-16 years as we have not balanced Trade deficits since its enactment and Newt was a part of that and so I want him to address what he plans on doing to create FAIR TRADE not just Free Trade . We have De-industrialized , read this its a fundamental of how a failed trade policy has decimated our USA’s ability to sustain our Independence , , our manufacturing base because of this to the point that we are totally dependent on every vital human need and that makes we the people a society of SERFS , a very dangerous position to be in . If we cannot even make a Nut or a Bolt to hold our society together how can we be able to negotiate with world leaders when really all we have left is a paper currency and a nuke , and nothing these so called trade partners need . They all have formed this alliance called the BRIC nations and together they can gain what they need from each other without needing anything from the USA and so my question is when they reject the dollar as world trade currency and tell the USA they don’t want any more dollars in exchange for what we need from them like Parts supplies to repair and maintain our fleets of vehicle distribution for our vital needs like this Video suggests we are getting very close to seeing happen, , all because we have become Dependent on foreign sources of supply and these nations no this can cripple our USA if they cut off our supply needs , and we have no Industrial system we can turn back on like a Light switch and take over supplying these needs what then , whats Newts plan when this happens ? Congressman Roscoe Bartlett says GET OUT of the CITIES , I say why did we let it come to this ???
    The High Cost of the China-WTO Deal: Administration’s own analysis suggests spiraling deficits, job losses; By Robert E. Scott; February 1, 2000:
    It has also taken Mexico\’s Jobs away over the years too. Europe\’s Jobs too. This is all because of a Simple Currency manipulation that does nothing to promote quality in our products.
    Remember what Ross Perot said , we would Hear a Giant Sucking Sound with this Trade Policy , he was right .

    THIS IS WHAT and HOW MITT ROMNEY MADE HIS MONEY WHILE THE USA INDUSTRIAL BASE was being DE-Constructed , the very harness that sustains Independence for any Nation , and as long as we have a Unbalanced Trade deficit because of this failed trade Policy we will have a Insolvent currency because of all of this and Broke people and state and Federal Governments !!!

    When all these warning signs were being ignored by the policy makers and Lobbyists in Washington DC because of the wealth effect that was seen and allowed to consolidate because of this so called Free Trade agreement of the 1990s , we the people are now down the road to SERFDOM farther than any other time in USA history and I want to hear what NEWT is going to do about this , in terms of Economic Monetary Policy Mechanism ???

    • blairblaster3

      we’ll never solve the trade imbalance until it makes more sense for business to locate in the USA vs. anywhere else. The most logical way to do that is to throw out the current tax code. Get with the program!

  • http://PATRIOTUPDATE Jerry Molen

    Romney has changed some of his positions. At least he has gone from pro-choice to pro-life..a step in the right direction. My concern is who can beat Obama? Even with a Romney t is moving closer to the ultimate goal. Gingrich has more flip flops than Romney and has a past that most conservatives and Evangelical Christians should abhor. You may have to hold your nose but better that than holding your ass in your hand. Obama will surely hand you that.

  • Dee

    I say if anyone it should be MICHELLE BACHMAN AND HERMAN CAIN NOW for he did say he would except VP spot……………….

  • Ltjg

    Back from Deer Hunting for a week. Can’t beleive the News. I have said it before and will say it again, What is a millionare today? It includes a lot of small businesses that employ. Forbes was on the right track. Anyone who listens to him is on the right track.

  • lampltr

    “Perry’s flat tax is a good step in the right direction, because the flat tax is the real “fair” tax. Newt Gingrich has a bolder and better flat plan…”

    Got to be kidding, many just do not get it. Cain and R.Paul have been talking about it but many just cannot see to grasp the best of the best with the implementation of the “Fair Tax” system. This is already in the Senate and up for vote, however the majority of the candidates have not mentioned it, or they have no desire to.
    People are desiring a drastic change, and with this would save the US an estimated $18B annually while still bringing in revenue…Go figure!


      It would save around 400 billion in tax
      complyance costs plus end the IRS !

    • blairblaster3

      you are correct-the FAIR TAX is the only real solution. It represents however the transfer of power from congress to the people and likely will never get passed for that very reason. As Alexander has stated before, and I might add, very eloquently, we’re headed for a showdown—the ballot box or the bullet box. If one doesn’t work the other will be a forgone conclusion.

  • kenneth

    I would hope that all the candidates would consider a new definition of INCOME. If wages and salaries are income, then why not food stamps, welfare, subsidized housing, etc.? Similarly, interest, dividends, and cap gains are income, and the arguements presented here do not persuade me that they should receive more favorable treatment than the sweat of a man’s brow. Anyhow, after income is defined, how about allowing one combined exemption/deduction which would be equal to the poverty level? Then, apply a mildly progressive set of rates, perhaps 10%, 20%, and 30%, with the inflection points negotiable and designed to raise the requisite funding for the government.

    • Nathaniel Davidson

      Evidently you are happy with double taxation.

      It is wasteful for the government to give money to someone then take some of that back in tax. It’s just bureaucratic “churning”.


      You are missing the point there would be NO
      tax on income under the FAIR TAX only on con-
      sumption ! tax what comes out of the economy not whatgoes in to the economy ! read the
      fair tax book by Ken Hogland

  • Dewey Dyer

    This article started well, but ended completely off track, unless one believes that the elitists are omniscient.

    When will the electorate realize that the real profits line the pockets of the elitists?

    Consider, if the entire federal deficit was spent solely on the poor (the nontax payers), they would receive about $1000 per person each year. But is the executive branch of the federal government was reduced merely 25% there would be no deficit.

    The solution is obvious – less government.

    • Nathaniel Davidson

      How did it go off track? No facts given.

      I don’t deny that government overspending is a real problem, but that was the subject of another column (see for example Obama’s “Washington Monument” style bullying.

    • lee

      hey. let us cut gov by 50% and then we pay off debt and interest and never have an unbalanced unreasonable budget again.cut out all foreign aid and all welfare including ge. smaller gov is way better than corrupt behemoth in dc and every state and every city and county in USA. clean up the cesspools. put all politicians on social security and travel. no extra benefits.cut staffs to 1.sleep in office. parttime work. parttime pay.cut in 1/2. includes grounding air force 1 and 2. only campaigning.

  • Gary J. Mallast

    I would vote for Barack Obama over Mitt Romney.

    If we are going to have a total jerk for president, I would rather he be a Democrat.

    Right now, Romney is the only Republican Obama could defeat for two good reasons. In the first place, except for hair grooming and skin color, it is almost impossible to tell Romney and Obama apart. Second, Romney would split the Republican vote as the tea partiers and Republican foundation stayed home in droves.

    • lee

      anybody but o. hate treasonous traitor who is destroying and dividing our country. Romney saved Olympics. he has business and money sense. He knows how to create jobs. He knows how to drill for oil by Americans for Americans. He loves America. He has character and principles. o does not. he is immoral and unethical.he is a closet homo muslim. he is unAmerican antiAmerican. o hates conservatives,women,whites,Jews doglovers and nonmuslims. o is a degenerate who belongs in gitmo or executed for being a domestic terrorist and treasonous traitor. o has to go along with all his idiot cronies.

  • Sherrie

    Nathaniel! Speaking of demagoguery.Your sick lies are definately not in the relm of journalism.

    • NotintheBox

      Neither is your spelling…

  • mrbobl

    Terrible article… When you have a candidate that you know damned well will do what the progressives will do, YOU SURE AS HELL -DO NOT- HOLD YOUR NOSE AND VOTE FOR THE RINO ANYWAY. You vote for the third party candidate and let the chips fall where they will. This voting for the lesser of two evils is a bunch of crap.
    However, it doesn’t make any difference if you vote democrat or republican anymore. Both parties are so infiltrated with the NWO gang you will get the same results with either party. Vote for the person you would LIKE to see in office. If you don’t, you can’t bitch about the outcome.
    Probably the only solution to our current problem is another French Revolution. Let the heads roll!!!!!!!!!!!

    • lee

      you sound like a divisive demon rat. anybody but o. o is worst of worst.

  • Randy131

    All those who were asked to donate to the US Treasury were in the class of the super rich, the one percent of the one percent, but Obama wants the taxes those super rich say they are willing to and want to pay, to be paid by those earning $200,000.00 and up, which includes many who could not afford it and keep their businesses going, or restrict their future expansion of their businesses, and are not the super rich. The shame here is not that the super rich doesn’t pay what Obama considers their fair share, but that Obama doesn’t understand who the super rich are, or that Obama knows if he actually only raised taxes on the small amount of people who are actually the super rich, it still would not raise enough taxes to cover his over-spending and the huge deficits he’s been creating, and is why he wants the taxes raised on those earning as little as $200,000.00. Obama is very dishonest, the shame is also that all the American people, as well as these super rich, don’t see this.

    • Randy131

      A 5% increase in taxes for the true super rich wouldn’t raise enough extra taxes to pay just 10% of the deficit that Obama has created each year, do the math and find out the truth. But if Obama can raise the taxes on all those earning $200,000.00, that would put a good dent in his deficits, but would still be 50% short of covering those 1.5 trillion dollar deficits Obama has created every year he’s been President. The media won’t tell the American people, but the two largest deficits in the history of the USA before Obama’s deficits were those of George Bush’s last two years in office, when the Democrats had won the majority control of both houses of Congress and control of those budgets, which 11 months after those Democrats won the majority control of both houses of Congress, the country went into a recession, from the Bush booming economy that had been going on for the previous 6 1/2 years. The question that should be asked is was the recession caused by the Democrats that won majorities in both houses of Congress, or the record setting deficits they created with that majority control, which every deficit of Obama has more than doubled the larger of the two record setting deficits of that time, that was created by the majority control of both houses of Congress by those Democrats? One should ask whether those huge deficits of Bush’s, created by the Democratic control of both houses of Congress, caused the recession, and if they did, are the more than double those record setting deficits that Obama is creating every year, keeping the recession going on and on and on?

    • lee

      o is trying to destroy America by overspending. do not give any foreign aid. make ge pay through the nose with backtaxes penalties and fees. surely can find some mistakes in their tax papers. surely. also o needs to go. he has zero money sense. he maxed out his credit cards(pre stealing presidency), never works hard nor well,and is unAmerican,antiAmerican. Not abiding by laws and lying,stealing,cheating, etc should earn him a spot in gitmo until execution for treasonous traitorous acts.


      Good one Lee ! we should supply extra rope
      for pelosi,reid, frank,holder,rangel,schumer,
      etc !

    • http://x Washington22

      Hey, Randy131. Where have you been? Tired of getting moderated, probably. Me, too,but I’ve decided NOT to give up. It gets discouraging, but my will to communicate on issues is more important. Hope you visit more often, like before.

  • Bill

    Mr Davidson– It appears you have NO KNOWLEDGE of “The Fair Tax” or the flat tax either. The current tax began as “The Flat Tax”,which is what we will keep should congress decides to amend code, in other words it will leave the tax code open to tinkering. “The Fair Tax” is a horse of a different color. Maybe you should buy the book “The Fair Tax”, read it and gain some understanding!

    • Nathaniel Davidson

      You sound like an arrogant liberal, making presumptions on what I do or don’t know. I am perfectly well aware of the history of the income tax, as shown in my previous column Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan: Nice Idea but Loaded with Problems.

      And even the term “fair tax” is ridiculous, something we should expect from liberals. Well, of course, who wants an “unfair tax”, any more than we want millionaires and billionaires to pay an “unfair share” (contra Obama).

    • Nonne

      There’s a good article about the “Fair Tax” on Wikipedia.

      We need to remember that over 40% of the American people currently pay NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX. It is easy to understand why these people will fight the “Fair Tax” idea — because it means they will be paying tax to the federal government RATHER than waiting on their end-of-year HANDOUT check from the IRS.

      We also have many illegal aliens who pay no federal income tax plus many workers who can successfully hide themselves and / or their true earnings from the fed government. But the “Fair Tax” would tax ’em ALL!

  • Yellow Horse

    Romney….. don’t we already have a president that says anything to try and get elected???? And changes all of his standings on things because thats what we want to hear??? He wouldn’t even make a decient used car salesman!!!

  • Larry

    Romney is nothing more than a White Barrack Obama so this world would be much better off with nothing rather than to have either of them as a President. Neither one of them wants the job to help the country they want the job for the power only and will take this country to its grave to prove they are in power and neither one of them has this country in mind

  • Debra J.M. Smith

    God calls me to do all things unto the Lord. I could never say, “This is for you, Lord,” while pulling a lever for Mitt Romney. –Therefore I could never cast a vote for Romney.

    I’d rather Obama get back in for another four years, than for my vote to put Obama’s Republican equivalent into office. How can we say anything against the liberal Democrats in this country, if we conservatives would be willing to put the same type of person into office?

    I will honor the Lord and trust that He is God.

    “Informing Christians” Journalist

    • Nathaniel Davidson

      So you will say “this is for you, Lord” when you enable four more years of the Infanticide President who has ruined our economy?

    • Debra J.M. Smith

      No, Nathaniel. I would be saying, “Lord I trust you, that you would never want me (or need me) to do anything evil, even the lesser of two evils.”

      And what is the real difference between Obama and Romney? –There is no real difference, but for one has a “D” by his name, and other an “R.” So even “the lesser of two evils,” does not work in this case.


    • Nathaniel Davidson

      As I explained in an early column, a non-vote is still a choice, and there is such a thing as a sin of omission. If your choice gives four more years to Obama, you share responsibility for his further destruction of this country. Now is not the time to act liberal and demand perfection of conservatives.

      It should be clear from my column that I have major problems with Romney. But claiming that he is no different from the Marxist anti-semitic infanticide-loving incumbent is just absurd.

    • Debra J.M. Smith

      The sin of omission is not doing what God commands us to do. And God never commands us to vote for a wicked person.

      But God does command us to trust Him and know that He is God. He also tells us not to fret when evil doers prosper in their ways, and to in no way do evil, but to do good.

      God says, “If my people, who are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.” –No where in this are we told that it is okay to do something that is seen by some as “less” evil, than another evil.

      Clever as a serpent, gentle (harmless) as a dove. –We can be clever, without doing wrong.


    • dfrank

      Debra: There has never been a time when the lesser of two evils was not different than the greater of two evils. Lesser and greater, Debra: They are polar opposites. They have meaning as well as consequences. If you do not do the best you can do, you do the worst you can do. Doesn’t sound like much to brag about to me.
      I have become thoroughly disgusted with people using that hackneyed excuse for doing the wrong thing for no good reason.

      A hypothetical for you, Debra: You have a choice of voting for a guy who will kill a little girls pony, an evil thing, of course — or you can vote for a guy that will put all cripple people in concentration camps and execute all the drug users.

      You know that both are evil; and, it appears your vote can make the difference. Are you trying to tell us that, faced with such a dilemma you would not vote for the pony slayer? Get outta here.

      I try to live by certain principles, too; and, one of them is that if a principle fails to work in every situation, it is not a principle, it’s just a decision. It appears that you are sanctimoniously saying that you are too principled to dirty your hands and will just hope that some George comes along to save all those people and buy the little girl a new pony.

      I’m pretty sure God expects more from us.

    • Debra J.M. Smith

      Hi dfrank,

      God expects me to trust Him and to not do wickedly.

      No, I am not looking for a “George” to come along and save the day. I am looking for God to come along and save the day. So I will do as He commands me to do, if I have to stand alone in doing so. –Which I don’t believe that I do stand alone. But, nonetheless, if God be for me, who shall be against me?

      Here is a hypothetical for you: A loved one is ill. One doctor wants to kill her. The other doctor wants to keep her in a vegetative state, with no hope of ever healing. Neither is willing to do what needs to be done for her to be cured and to live a healthy life. Is one doctor really better than the other? Would you not seek God’s face to either miraculously heal your loved one, or to bring someone forward to put on the job that will do what is needed for her to heal?

      I won’t settle for this country staying in a vegetative state. And I will not insult God, praying to him in a double-minded way. If I vote in one wicked person, to get another wicked person out, just because he “might” be less wicked, then I am not trusting God, and He won’t hear my prayer.

      It is going to take God to heal this land, not a George, whether he uses a George or not. And all glory will go to God. It is not by our might, but by God’s might that this nation can be healed.

      Life is fragile. Don’t ever think we hold a thing together in it. It is written that all things are held together by Jesus.

      So, I respectfully disagree with you. And I invite you to join me in trusting God and doing as Psalm 37 instructs us to do.

      PS: If a wolf has the office of the presidency, I’d rather him be dressed as a wolf and not as a sheep. –The latter is far more dangerous to society.

  • Dianne Belsom

    NONE of the candidates running on the Republican ticket are as bad as Obama, who hates our country and is trying to destroy us. If you give him 4 more years, he will finish the job. We don’t have the luxury of time; I don’t like Romney, which is why I am working for someone else to become the nominee. But if we do end up with Romney, I will CERTAINLY vote for him, and with a clear conscience before God.

    • Nathaniel Davidson

      Indeed, Debra above (no reply button) is under impression that her conscience will be clear if her non-vote allows Obama to win. But her refusal to prevent this means that she would be responsible for the wreckage of the country. She seems way to trusting of God to rescue the country if we allow Obama another four years, although I wasn’t aware that He has promised to save us from our own folly.

    • Joy


      I personally agree with Debra. And I hope that people will read her comments. She makes a very good Biblical point.


    • Nathaniel Davidson

      What biblical point? There is no biblical command to vote that I am aware of, yet Debra is very dogmatic that we shouldn’t vote for people who are not perfect.

      I thought that the government’s job was to restrain evil. Therefore if we do have the privilege to vote, it makes sense to use it to maximize the amount of evil we can restrain. Debra would instead presume on God to rescue us when we refuse to do what we can.

      From an article I cited in my earlier column, When Compromising Is not a Compromise by Gregory Koukl:

      The possible question we’re faced with is this: If we were forced to choose between feeling or looking virtuous but having no actual effect, or appearing ignoble but accomplishing some good, which path should we take? When we must choose one or the other, are we obliged by God to make a moral statement or to have a moral impact?

      Goodness requires more than making a moral statement. Rather, it requires having a moral impact. Jesus condemned Jews who abused the practice of Corban (Mark 7:11), a pledge to God that appeared righteousness, but helped no one. …

      In other words, it’s better to choose someone who is committed to eliminating some of the evil, than contributing to the victory of one who is not committed to eliminating any of the evil but, on the contrary, will promote it. This is not a compromise. This is good moral thinking. …

      If you sleep more comfortably at night because you’ve voted your principles, then I believe your conscience is well-intended, though misinformed. You’ve chosen to make a moral statement instead of choosing to have a moral impact.

      As one pundit put it, it’s better to have a second class fireman than a first class arsonist. There is no victory or honor in voting for the first-class fireman who had no chance of winning when, in the end, your “conscience vote” actually allowed the arsonist get elected.

      The primary election is the place to vote for our first-class fireman, …

    • Debra J.M. Smith


      I am not looking for perfection in a candidate’s actions. I am looking for a true Christian statesman/woman.

      And I disagree with the writing that you inserted into your comment, by Gregory Koukl. Mark 7:11 is being misapplied in it.

      Mark 7 actually defends the stand that I am taking, in that I will not go with man’s tradition, but rather that I will do things God’s way. It also points out that it is not things that are from without (the outside the body) that can defile a man, but rather that which comes out of a man, that can defile him.

      You see, the people had something to say to Jesus about the disciples, having eaten bread with unwashed hands. They said that such defiled a man. And Jesus let them know that they were laying aside the commandment of God, to hold the tradition of men. And that it is not that which is on the outside that can defile a man, but that which comes out of a man that can defile him, because it comes from a man’s heart. –Washing of hands, only cleans the hands, not the heart.

      And if you think about it, Nathaniel, this is why we need a person who is of the Lord, to hold that highest office of our land. No matter what he tries to do, will be of no good, if his heart is not right with Jesus.

      King James Version Mark 7

      1 Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem.

      2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.

      3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.

      4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.

      5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?

      6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

      7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

      8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

      9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

      10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:

      11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.

      12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;

      13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

      14 And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand:

      15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.

      16 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.

      17 And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable.

      18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;

      19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

      20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.

      21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,

      22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:

      23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

      24 And from thence he arose, and went into the borders of Tyre and Sidon, and entered into an house, and would have no man know it: but he could not be hid.

      25 For a certain woman, whose young daughter had an unclean spirit, heard of him, and came and fell at his feet:

      26 The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter.

      27 But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.

      28 And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children’s crumbs.

      29 And he said unto her, For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter.

      30 And when she was come to her house, she found the devil gone out, and her daughter laid upon the bed.

      31 And again, departing from the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, he came unto the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the coasts of Decapolis.

      32 And they bring unto him one that was deaf, and had an impediment in his speech; and they beseech him to put his hand upon him.

      33 And he took him aside from the multitude, and put his fingers into his ears, and he spit, and touched his tongue;

      34 And looking up to heaven, he sighed, and saith unto him, Ephphatha, that is, Be opened.

      35 And straightway his ears were opened, and the string of his tongue was loosed, and he spake plain.

      36 And he charged them that they should tell no man: but the more he charged them, so much the more a great deal they published it;

      37 And were beyond measure astonished, saying, He hath done all things well: he maketh both the deaf to hear, and the dumb to speak.

  • The Jimmy Z Show

    Romney INVENTED homosexual marriage in this country, and he has not yet apologized for it, or brought it up AT ALL. No to Romney. He’s a RINO in full bloom.