Romney: The Real, Conservative Change Agent

Change. Everyone seems to want — to need — change.

And I get it …

I also want change: I am sick and tired of a government run amok, of politicians who spend us into oblivion, of elected officials who trash the very Constitution they are sworn to defend, of bureaucrats crushing entrepreneurship with oppressive regulation, of the nanny state protecting me from myself — and, at my age … I turn 62 this month … I am very concerned that when I need medical care it will not be there because some bean-counter residing in Washington will decide I’m not worth the money.

And I shudder with dread when I contemplate the debt being piled upon my children and grandchildren. It simply cannot be paid off; there just isn’t enough money. It will destroy whatever is left of this great nation when the current Traitor-in-Chief is through — but he won’t have to worry because he will be a former president with a lifetime of guaranteed income and medical care.

But as much as I want change — total, immediate, dramatic, historic change — my age and experience allow me to school that desire, to temper it with the lessons learned in this university we call life.

It has taken us over a century to get to where we now find ourselves as a nation. Indeed, our journey to the socialist collective has been overseen by no fewer than eight presidents: Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barak Obama. Each, by design, left us with a larger and more intrusive government.

So, to all of you conservatives, including those with a pronounced libertarian streak — I am one of you, and have been since I first read The Blue Book, a publication of the John Birch Society, at age 14, and subsequently campaigned for Barry Goldwater for president in that same year. A picture of Ronald Reagan wearing a cowboy hat hangs in our den, and it is one of my most prized possessions. And, yes, I campaigned and voted for California’s Proposition 8 — the initiative designed to protect traditional marriage and stop same-sex marriages.

And I am voting for Mitt Romney — which brings me back to my central idea: it has taken more than a century to get here and it will take time to return to where we ought to be. Managing that transformation will take at least eight years and will require someone with vision, principles, commitment, and the ability to fight the urge to do it all at once.

There is, after all, only one word to describe the change we need: radical. The problem is that change of such magnitude will be difficult and slow because, if for no other reason, many people will have to be convinced that the kind of change we need is, in fact, needed … not so easy unless you control both houses of Congress, including having a supermajority in the Senate because, in that body, a majority is not enough to do anything important. And then there’s the fight over whose ox is going to get gored. Everybody wants tax reform, for example, until it is their mortgage interest that will no longer be deductible.

Our president must therefore be leader who can be accepted by conservative Republicans and independents alike because that is who it will take to sell the reforms we need. Our president must also be a leader who has managed large, complex tasks, who knows how to prioritize and get things done, who understands that no one can be excluded from taking part in restoring our great nation. Our president must be a man of extraordinary personal integrity who, at the same time, has created jobs in the private sector, who understands what it means to own and operate a successful business, who believes in free markets and individual initiative. Our president must be a leader who facilitates change by implementing a series of strategic, smaller steps rather than demanding an immediate overhaul of everything right now.

Turning our country around and returning to the Constitution as drafted and understood by the Founders will be a long, arduous journey — but every worthwhile journey begins and ends with a single step, not a grandiose proclamation.

Yes, Newt … Rick, your ideas are great, as are Mitt’s. The difference is that Mitt can get it done without a supermajority in the Senate. He’s proven that in Massachusetts where he faced an overwhelmingly liberal, Democrat legislature, a legislature where those who opposed him had a supermajority — something you have never done and seem to dismiss when you turn to distorting the facts about Mitt’s record. Of course, if the truth were known, Mitt would be the clear favorite of most Republicans.

And, by the way, Mitt is a conservative — a fact well-known to those who either know him or have taken the time to actually study his record.

Romney and the United States Constitution

The setting was Kirtland, Ohio, December 16, 1833. A little more than three years earlier, Joseph Smith and a small group of those who believed as he did organized The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly referred to today as Mormons.

Because of their religious beliefs, early members of the church endured much persecution — persecution that resulted in the loss of life, liberty, and property. Indeed, mobs had only recently driven the Saints from their homes in Jackson County, Missouri, but even that did not satisfy the blood-lust raging in the hearts of those who wanted to annihilate the Mormons, so threats against life and limb continued … and were numerous. Indeed, only a few years hence Governor Boggs of Missouri would issue his infamous Extermination Order against the early members of the fledgling church.

And it is this background that makes what followed so remarkable and therefore reveals so much about Mitt Romney’s affection for our Constitution.

In the face of the challenges confronting the Saints in Missouri, Joseph Smith sought answers from the only source with the power to deliver them from their enemies. And the questions themselves were certainly relevant — and needed answering: What was he to do? What direction should be given to church members? How should the church respond to the atrocities?

Those of us who are members of the LDS Church regard the answer given to Joseph Smith’s inquiry as a revelation from the Lord himself. And while non-Mormons are under no obligation to regard the text as the word of God, a proper analysis of the message does demand that even non-Mormons acknowledge the reverence afforded the Constitution by active members of the church — active members like Mitt Romney. In other words, those who doubt Mitt’s commitment to the Constitution and the principles embodied therein would do well to understand the theology that lies at the core of his soul — at least on this subject.

Here is the answer given to Joseph Smith, as recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants, Section 101:

“And again I say unto you, those who have been scattered by their enemies, it is my will that they should continue to importune for redress, and redemption, by the hands of those who are placed as rulers and are in authority over you—

“According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;

“That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.

“Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.

“And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.” (Doctrine and Covenants, Section 101:76-80)

There are seven principles clearly taught in this passage:

First, the Saints were to continue to abide by the law and seek a redress of grievances — as provided by the Constitution.

Second, God himself established the Constitution, which makes it a sacred as well as political document.

Third, the Constitution was established for the “protection of all flesh” — regardless of social status, color, creed, or location. Indeed, it was based on “just and holy principles.”

Fourth, all of God’s children were given moral agency — liberty — and every individual will be held accountable by God for his or her exercise of that agency.

Fifth, no person should ever be in bondage to another.

Sixth, God not only established the Constitution, but raised up “wise men” for this very purpose — a clear and unequivocal statement that original intent is to be taken seriously when deciding the constitutionality of any federal law or regulation.

Seventh, this land was redeemed by “the shedding of blood” — another clear and unequivocal statement … this time referring to His divine intervention in a War for Independence where we were outgunned, outmanned, and outspent.

Romney has had great success: he understands business and the free market; he understands liberty and the costs of maintaining that sacred gift; he understands that our Constitution is a legacy given to all men and women everywhere; and he understands that the Constitution — as framed by our founders — must once again become the centerpiece of our national, political life … for such is a fundamental precept of our shared theology.

Romney and Gay Marriage

Romney and family values. Social conservatives — of whom I am one — are sometimes highly critical of Mitt Romney because, some believe, he is not strong enough on the issue of same-sex marriage. Once again, as with health care, those who levy this charge are ignorant of the facts.

Mitt has made it very clear that what he did in Massachusetts was to follow the law, as interpreted and required by the Massachusetts Supreme Court. And wherever he has had an opportunity, he has spoken in favor of or sought change that would preserve the sanctity of traditional marriage.

If, however, one has any doubts about where Mitt Romney stands on the family, they need go no further than “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” issued by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints more than 15 years ago. Many of these same social conservatives, particularly Christian fundamentalists, criticize Romney for his “Mormon” faith. What they do not understand, however, is that Romney’s faith informs his beliefs about the family. And anyone who doubts Mitt’s commitment to the traditional family really needs to read that proclamation.

The Truth About Mitt and “RomneyCare”

Much has been made of “RomneyCare” — supposedly Mitt’s version of ObamaCare — and conservatives and pseudo-intellectuals who are anxious to join the anyone-but-Romney club lose no time in drawing a comparison between the two in an effort to discredit Romney’s conservative credentials.

Those who do so, however, are either intellectually dishonest or consumers of the same Kool-Aid offered up by liberals who are afraid to face Romney in a general election.

The facts are these: first, Romney has made it very clear that there are significant differences between what was done in Massachusetts and what was done by a dumb, deaf, and blind Congress in 2010; those differences have been explained in detail by the candidate. Second, Romney has said that some provisions of the Massachusetts law should be changed or repealed because they have not worked as planned. Third, Romney has correctly noted that the Massachusetts legislature passed many provisions of the law over his objections — provisions about which he could do nothing because of the numbers of liberal Democrats who sat in the state legislature — and have since made other changes with which he disagrees completely. Fourth — and most important, Romney is committed to a complete and total repeal of ObamaCare, and is preparing a wide range of executive orders to accomplish this task with his signature alone in case the House and Senate refuse to go along.

But all of that misses the real point.

True Constitutional conservatives — of which I am one — cannot have it both ways on this or any other issue. Our federal system gives certain powers to the national government and reserves all others to the states and individuals. Those who understand this principle know well that the Constitution, properly interpreted, does not allow the federal government to enter into health care, much less impose an individual mandate; however, the very same Constitution that prohibits the federal government from acting is utterly silent when it comes to state action. Put another way, Washington may not have the power to impose national health care — but states are free to devise state-based solutions to this pressing problem.

And that is the beauty of our federal system: fifty states get to run fifty different experiments to see which approach works best, and the others are free to follow or go their own way. Personally, I would have hated the Massachusetts law, but I don’t live there, nor do I ever intend to live there. Meanwhile, I am going to be voting for a president — not a governor.

And Mitt has made his position on health care crystal clear: he will repeal ObamaCare and seek, in its place, free-market solutions because, in the end, he is a capitalist who loves America and our free enterprise system — one to which he has contributed much during his career.

Romney’s “Mormon” Faith Attacked

Pastor Robert Jeffress of the First Baptist Church in Dallas, a Rick Perry supporter, has once again called Romney a cultist because of his Mormon faith. It’s tragic that, in these supposedly enlightened times, such a baseless charge would even get any press. 

The facts are these: Romney is a good man who has held high ecclesiastical office in the LDS church. Specifically, he was responsible for the spiritual and temporal welfare of an entire stake — seven to ten entirely separate congregations, as many as five or six thousand men, women, and children. I know the kind of men who are placed in such positions because I have worked closely with six of them, all far better men than I. With Romney, you will never hear about another woman or misspent youth, and you will know he has always conducted himself in all areas of his life with the utmost integrity. 

And, as the official name of his faith — and mine — suggests, he is and I am a Christian. We belong to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We acknowledge Christ, the Son of the living God, as our Savior — and encourage all people to come unto Him.

(For the full article about the attack on Romney, see

America at the Crossroads

In a little more than one year from now, Americans will choose between two, fundamentally different and completely incompatible approaches to government — We can continue to grow the size and power of government until it destroys us, or we can return to the Constitutional principles of limited government, maximum freedom, and personal responsibility. One course leads to slavery and death, the other to freedom and life fulfilled as God intended. It is a battle that has been waged since before the foundations of this world were laid. It is a battle for which the ultimate outcome is already known. It is a battle for which there is only one remaining, unanswered question — but an answer to that question will be required of all men and women, individually, whatever their station or status: Will we stand with the forces of darkness and those who would rob us of our freedom, or will we stand with the Creator who has made us free and those who wish to preserve that freedom?