General

Nearly a year ago, the National Association of Evangelicals polled our leadership regarding their preference for president.

At that time there were many accomplished men and women that were pursuing the prize. Our group favored many of them including Tim Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Paul Ryan, Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachmann and others.

I chose Mitt Romney–and because that seemed like an unusual choice for an evangelical, they quoted my assessment in our monthly publication.

I believed Governor Romney was the best choice a year ago. The primary season only verified my conclusion through the broader electorate. And next week I will fill out my all-mail ballot and put a check by his name.

There are five reasons why I will vote for Mitt Romney to be the next president of the United States.

But first, let’s enjoy a little humor about why Mitt Romney–in the eyes of the “Lamestream Media”–might not be qualified for POTUS.

(The following Internet blurb is from my friend Steve Boyce at Northwest University.)

“Top Ten Reasons To Dislike Mitt Romney”

1.  Drop-dead, collar-ad handsome with gracious, statesmanlike aura.  Looks like every central casting’s #1 choice for Commander-in-Chief.
2.  Been married to one woman his entire life, and has been faithful to her, including through her bouts with breast cancer and MS.
3.  No scandals or skeletons in his closet.  (How boring is that?)
4.  Can’t speak in a fake, southern, “black preacher voice” when necessary.
5.  Highly intelligent.  Graduated cum laude from both Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School, and his academic records are not sealed.
6.  Doesn’t smoke or drink alcohol, and has never done drugs, not even in the counter-culture age when he went to college.
7.  Represents an America of “yesterday”, where people believed in God, went to church, didn’t screw around, worked hard, and became a success.
8.  Has a family of five great sons and none of them have police records or are in drug rehab.  But of course, they were raised by a stay-at-home mom, and that “choice” deserves America’s scorn.
9.  He’s a Mormon. We need to be very afraid of that strange religion that teaches its members to be clean-living, patriotic, fiscally conservative, charitable, self-reliant, and honest.
10.  He can’t relate to ordinary Americans because he made his money himself as opposed to marrying into it, inheriting it from dad, or receiving it from the government.  Apparently, he didn’t understand that actually working at a job and earning your own money made you unreliable to Americans.

That piece is worth a few chuckles, but it’s also quite revealing about what the secular world values  and how they’ve made “good bad” and “bad good” in modern society.

That might be worth a few tears as well.

So why do I hope that the majority of Americans will vote for Willard Mitt Romney to be the 45th president of the United States? (First hint: It’s not because we share the same birthday of March 12.)

Number One: Mitt Romney’s worldview

This is always high on my list of qualifications for government service. What is the candidate’s worldview? Does he believe that there is a God who is the Supreme Judge of the earth and who delegates his authority to human governments to protect the life, liberty, and property of those that he loves?

Mitt Romney is the only candidate in the 2012 race who will govern from a Judeo-Christian perspective–the one that made America both successful and great. Barack Obama professes a personal faith in Jesus Christ, but he governs as an atheist or secularist whose values are not founded in Scripture but in the shifting winds of human opinion.

For example, President Obama’s views have “evolved” regarding marriage being between one man and one woman. Mitt Romney’s view is anchored in biblical revelation going back to Genesis 2 and 3 and confirmed by five thousand years of human history.

Governor Romney’s values–from economic principles, to social issues, to foreign policy–are American through and through. The American way of life (despite our sins) and the American system of government (despite its weaknesses) are a social and political expression of biblical ideals (that can always be improved). “Forward” in America is not back to perversity and heathenism. It must be a repentant renewal of “In God We Trust” and a commitment to live out his principles both at home and abroad.

Only Mitt Romney shares that perspective in the 2012 presidential race.

And what about Mormonism? Yes, some of its beliefs are outside mainstream biblical faith, but the people it produces are, on the whole, exemplary human beings who seem to live out the essence of the Christian faith better than many Catholics and evangelicals–despite their historical heresies.

Mormons practice Judeo-Christian values. That makes them trustworthy in the governmental sphere.

Number Two: Mitt Romney’s personal character and moral values

Integrity is always vital on my list–and Mitt Romney seems to possess it in abundance. He has been respected all his life as an honest, straight-shooting guy with admirable traditional values, great humility, and incredible generosity.

In the past few months we’ve heard numerous stories about how he served his church and their needs, reached out to those in difficult straits, and how much he gives to help others. In fact, last year he gave 19% of his income to charity, compared to 1% by President Obama and .013% by Joe Biden.

His personal values are biblically centered. Importance? He knows right from wrong and lives it with conviction in his own life.

Pastor John MacArthur of Grace Community Church and Master’s College rightly explains that the 2012 presidential election:

“… is not about politics, although there are things we could talk about: You’re not voting for a pastor, you’re not voting for a spiritual leader, you’re voting for someone who has some sense of morality. Since the Bible says that the role of government is to punish evil doers and protect the good, you better have somebody in power who understands what is good and what is evil.”

Number Three: Mitt Romney’s preparation for the job

There is a major difference today in how the two political parties pick their candidates for president. The Democratic Party is more personality driven. They usually promote whoever is the “shooting star” of the moment. That’s why they nominated a relatively unknown peanut father/governor named Jimmy Carter in 1976 because he had a nice smile, and professed to be born again. Never mind that he had a secular worldview and was incompetent as a leader.

Barack Obama rose to the presidency under the same promises of stardom and the “making of history” (being African American). Yeah, he was a great speaker, cool character, and chose some lofty slogans about “Hope and Change.”

But he’d been a questionable state senator–the only one in the Illinois legislature that was strongly committed to infanticide–then stepped up to a bland stint in the US Senate and finally the presidency with little vetting, no executive or business experience, questionable associations, and little real life experience.

This is no way to evaluate or elevate a leader. Little preparation = little success.

On the other hand, the Republican Party has been better at promoting leaders to run for POTUS only after they have paid their dues of service, success, loyalty, building a national following, and being “next in line.”

This is the biblical principle of gathering “little by little” instead of “get-rich quick.” Character is proven through patience, struggle and growth over time. Ronald Reagan built a lifetime of proven character that eventually got him the Republican nomination and then the presidency. He waited (earned) his time and moment–after losing to Gerald Ford in 1976.

In 2000, John McCain finished second to George W. Bush. Eight years later, after a lifetime of public service, he had earned the right to lead the party in 2008. He was unsuccessful, but his preparation was thorough.

In 2008, Mitt Romney finished second to John McCain. He paid his dues, learned the ropes, and grew as a national leader. It was obvious to me that he was the most prepared candidate to rise to the Republican nomination in 2012.

He did it the right way–by patient perseverance. In 2012 he is most prepared man in America to be president of the United States.

Number  Four: Mitt Romney’s business competence

Since the number one issue in this election is American economic malaise, including staggering federal debt (16 trillion dollars), a lack of jobs (23 million unemployed) entitlement problems (Social Security and Medicare), plunging incomes ($4500 per household), the need for dramatic tax reform, and a lack of confidence in future, doesn’t it make sense to elect a man who is one of the best businessmen in America?

Mitt Romney spent 25 years in the private sector and created thousands of jobs through his businesses; he almost single-handedly rescued the Salt Lake City Olympic Games from financial ruin; he has a thorough understanding of the best economic system possible in a fallen world–free enterprise capitalism.

In this category alone, comparing Mitt Romney to Barack Obama is like comparing an elephant to a flea–Barack Obama has no real world experience in either job creation or understanding how free societies work and succeed. He’s a big government hack. Unfortunately, big governments destroy wealth (and re-distribute it)–they do not create it.

Number Five: Mitt Romney’s executive experience

Barack Obama rose charismatically to the office of the presidency without ever having led anything. That’s a stunning oversight by the American electorate. He not only had never run a business, but his only experience in government was legislative–not executive. No wonder his administration has been filled with governing snafus like the ram-rodded health care bill debacle and the recent lapse in security in Libya that cost four American lives.

Barack Obama never learned to lead before he arrived on the scene.

Mitt Romney has been a leader all his life–including being the highly successful governor of Massachusetts where he worked in a bi-partisan manner with a majority-Democrat legislature.

Barack Obama has shown no such inclination on Capitol Hill. In fact, a former staff member intimated recently that he really doesn’t like people–that’s why, she said, it’s “stunning he’s in politics.”

Mitt Romney genuinely likes people and is very effective at working with leaders of other persuasions.

Summary

Worldview, character, preparation, competence, and experience. These are the characteristics that produce good, successful leaders. No human being possesses their full orb–but some people get a lot closer than others.

When you check the ballots of those you vote for in the crucial 2012 elections, keep those qualifiers in mind. They are the difference between good leaders and bad or mediocre ones.

May God help us choose wisely.

 

 

 

 

 

The most controversial article I ever wrote–one that prompted a spate of negative responses from all over the world–was one of my first Revive America blogs in October, 2008.

It was called “One Hundred Reasons Why I Will Not Vote for Barack Obama.” I had just returned from a trip to Asia where, over the course of a long flight, I jotted down one hundred policy stances that I felt disqualified Barack Obama from being a successful US president. They encompassed economic, social, and foreign policy positions then held by the Democratic candidate.

But don’t worry if you’re staring at the title above. Even though the most critical election of our lifetime is just four weeks away, I will not make you sift through 2700 bullet points this time around.

I can bring it down to one.

First, a little backdrop.

I wrote my first book in 1976 about that year’s presidential election–originally a three-way race between Gerald Ford, the Nixon-appointed incumbent, Ronald Reagan the conservative challenger, and Jimmy Carter the liberal Georgian peanut farmer.

Before the age of the Internet and computers, I sent snail mail to all the campaign headquarters requesting the three candidates’ positions on thirty areas of public policy. I wanted to know what they would do to improve the economy, where they stood on social and moral issues, and what type of foreign policy they would conduct.

Once I received their position papers, I condensed the data, and with the help of Intercessors for America, produced the first presidential “Voter Guide” that was distributed across the country.

I collected so much material that summer that I decided to turn it into a book. The publisher eventually determined that it would be most helpful as an expose on James Earl Carter because he was the least known of the candidates running–and professed to be a born-again Christian.

So What About Jimmy Carter? rolled off the Third Century Publishers press one month before the November election. Ronald Reagan had just lost out at the Republican Convention (Shirley and I cried that night) and the battle was set between Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.

But my expose of Carter was too little, too late. He won in a close election.

What followed was a government that moved rapidly in a secular direction, brought gas shortages, American hostages in Iran, and produced a numbing “malaise” that zapped the American nation of its vim and vigor.

Fortunately, the ’80 Reagan Revolution brought “Morning in America ” four years later by turning the nation back to its Judeo-Christian roots, free enterprise principles, and “peace through strength.”

In Jonah Goldberg’s most recent bestseller The Tyranny of Cliches: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas, Mr. Goldberg, who calls himself “a fairly secular Jew,” says that elections are like “circuit-breakers” that stop the flow of ideas in one direction and help them flow another way.

The “circuit breaker” of the 1980 election did that very thing. It also produced, according to famed economist Arthur Laffer, “the greatest time of prosperity and peace-time economic expansion in the history of the world.”

But that was thirty years ago.

Now back to Barack Obama and the 2012 election.

When I first heard Mr. Obama speak at the 2004 Democratic Convention, I was very impressed (just like everybody else). He was a great speaker, charismatic, a family man, talked about bringing the “blue states and red states together,” and professed to be a follower of Christ.

However, by the time he ran for president in 2008, much of the truth about his worldview and positions had become known–if you knew where to look for them. So I wrote down my one hundred reasons why I couldn’t vote for him. It had nothing to do with race. That year, I would have gladly voted for Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, Walter Williams, or J.C. Watts for president.

Color doesn’t matter. When it comes to presidential politics, it’s the worldview, stupid.

I couldn’t vote for Barack Obama in 2008. I feared that his tenure would be a major “circuit-breaker” in American societal direction. In fact, he announced it that way. He’d come to the presidency to “fundamentally transform the American nation.”

So what are the 2700 reasons not to vote for him? Well, it’s his signature bill that actually encompasses 2700 pages.

Obamacare–whose proper name is “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.”

It tells you all you need to know about why you shouldn’t vote for Barack Obama:

1. It is a huge government power grab of nearly one-sixth of the American economy. By making Obamacare his number one priority of the first two years, President Obama told us exactly who he is–a Big Government liberal-progressive who wants the State to control every aspect of our lives. His motives may be good–to provide healthcare to all Americans–but the means is ugly. Governments are lousy providers because they lack competition and use force to achieve their ends. Obamacare is the biggest tyranny ever hoisted on the American people.

2. When the nation desperately needed a political cocktail of lower spending, tax cuts and tax reform, fighting for the entrepreneur, and unleashing the power of innovation and opportunity, President Obama allowed Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to throw together a nearly three thousand page job-crushing monstrosity that froze money in the banks, caused businesses large and small to curtail hiring, and created paralyzing fear for the future. That’s why we’ve had 8% unemployment for four years now with trillions of corporate dollars sitting on the sidelines. The wealth-creators of America are distrustful of the new taxes, increased regulations, and the 200,000 new IRS agents that will police the system and destroy the America way of life.

3. Ms. Pelosi famously told us during the process of ramming the bill through Congress that “we need to pass the bill to find our what is in it.” All that we learned from that statement is that there’s isn’t much in Ms. Pelosi’s brain except a hunger for tyranny. How dumb does she think we are? Paste together a wish-list of government bureaucracies and declare with a straight face that this is good for America and will lower the cost of healthcare? Well, now that we’ve found time to examine the bill over the past four years, we know that it raided 716 billion dollars from Medicare– jeopardizing its future–has upped health care costs every year, and according to the Congressional Budget Office, will cost at least three times what we were told. And that in an era of 16 trillion dollar budget deficits.

4. The way Obamacare was passed was instructive of Barack Obama’s leadership style–Chicago-style slash and burn. Instead of doing what Mitt Romney had done on a state level–bringing Democrats and Republicans together in a bi-partisan way on a health care bill that was supported overwhelmingly in the Massachusetts legislature with only two votes against it and support by nearly every special interest group in the state–President Obama used bribes and kickbacks to foist his vision on America with not one Republican vote and against the will of the American people. Massachusetts healthcare law is still supported by at least 67% of the electorate. Obamacare has never crossed the 50% barrier.

5. What we also learned from Obamacare was the aggressive secularism of the Obama administration in clamping down on Christian morality and religious liberties in America. Obamacare is loaded with secular mandates that put a dagger into two hundred years of religious freedom including forcing faith-based institutions to violate their conscience on contraception and abortion–to name a few. This is a dagger aimed at religious liberty, morality, and traditional family life. It has motivated Bishop E.W. Jackson to encourage African-Americans to abandon the Democratic Party.  He says, “Clearly, the Democratic Party is the anti-Christian Party in this nation. They reject the Bible, what Bible-believing Christians embrace and they encourage the growth of what we can a ‘non-traditional’ family. That is morally wrong and a disgrace to our nation and our Lord.”

It was very interesting that in the first presidential debate between Mitt Romney and President Obama, when Governor Romney referred to “Obamacare” the first time, and apologized for using its colloquial name, Barack Obama said he actually “liked it”–and smiled.

He likes the 2700 pound gorilla.

He doesn’t seem to understand that his signature issue tells us all we need to know about where he wants to take America if he gets another four years:  toward a secular, socialist nanny state where faith is no longer free

I don’t know what your reasons are, but I’m not voting for Barack Obama.

2700 pages of Obamacare say it all.

It must be repealed by a new president, House, and Senate that we the people elect on November 6.

 

 

The US presidential election is heading into its final forty days. Most of the polls are close, and much is being said about the importance of the debates which are scheduled for October.

As I look at the current race–in what many are saying is a pivotal contest in America’s history–I am reminded of one unmentioned advantage that President Barack Obama holds. 

It relates to human nature.

I’m also aware of a different kind of strength that might propel Mitt Romney in 2012. Let’s call it Mitt Romney’s secret weapon.

First, a bit of perspective.

The main predicament we find ourselves in in America during this early part of the 21st century is a titanic battle of worldviews that has become a struggle for the future of the nation.

The mainstream media blurs our understanding of this battle by naming it “gridlock”–as in Washington, D.C. They don’t  define gridlock nor explain why it is worse now than it was thirty years ago. They imply that the answer is for Republicans and Democrats to be more tolerant and humble toward one another which would translate into bi-partisan accomplishments.

But a change of attitude is not the problem. The two major parties in this country have come to strongly represent two diametrically opposed political ideologies that are battling for America’s soul.

There is little room for compromise. One will win and the other will lose.

Here’s what I mean.

For the first two hundred years of American history, various political parties participated in our national life. They had differences on numerous issues, but not on the fundamental American worldview which was Judeo-Christian. They all generally believed in God, the American experiment in freedom, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and America’s just-war role in world affairs.

Thus a progressive Democrat like Franklin Roosevelt, as recently as the 1940s, could go on the radio and, almost like the “pastor” of the nation, lead the citizens of the United States in prayer as they faced the dark days of World War II.

His Republican alternative could have done the same. At that time, the atheist or secular view of life was present in this country but had not become a dominant player in government, the media, or the high echelons of education–or either political party.

But, from the 1960s onward, secularism rose to become a powerful force in America life and politics. Its champions created a dubious interpretation of the First Amendment, and under the newly minted mantra of “separation of church and state” began to battle at every turn the Judeo-Christian foundations of the nation.

Prayer in schools fell in the 1960s; Abortion on demand became law in the 1970’s; Families began to crumble under the onslaught of immorality and easy divorce became the norm; Free enterprise capitalism became disrespected and controlled; America’s role as a beacon of liberty began to be questioned in the world (think Viet Nam), and this change began to affect the two political parties.

For those who like labels, we are told that the Republicans went right and the Democrats went left.

If life was based on geography, then this branding might be true. But it’s not. Life is based on ideas that emanate from a person or group’s concept of reality.

Here is the better perspective: Republicans continued to believe in the biblical worldview of life, liberty, and government, and the Democrats began to embrace secularism.

So in 2012, Republicans generally promote the historic Judeo-Christian worldview whose issues focus on pro-life, family, freedom, hard work, small government, national defense and believe that America is a God-blessed nation.

The Republican platform of 2012 backs up that analysis. You can read it here.

The Democrats, on the other hand, are now anti-life (abortion), want to legalize same sex marriage (re-define family), want the government to restrict the freedom of business and religion in this nation, desire to provide substantial entitlements to people, want a larger and more powerful central government, and are committed to scale back national defense.

The Democratic platform of 2012 also clearly backs up the above analysis. You can read it here.

It is not being unfair to say today that Republicans “trust in God” and Democrats “trust in government.” Voting trends in past elections show that faith-based people vote Republican nearly 70% of the time and the same number of secular-oriented people vote Democratic.

In fairness, there are Republicans that take secular positions on some issues, and there are Democrats that take biblical stances in various areas. No human or party is perfectly consistent.

But the stark contrast remains. One party believes in freedom anchored in God-given truths. The other professes a freedom that evolves from human sources.

So we come to the clearest-choice election of all of American history. Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan and the Republican Party–despite their many weaknesses–want to steer the American nation back to its biblical foundations and moorings. Barack Obama, Joe Biden and the Democratic Party–despite their many strengths–want to take America into a humanistic future.

Barack Obama has a decided advantage in this task which relates, not to his secular outlook, but to the teachings of the Bible. It explains and history verifies that human beings are depraved, sinful, have missed the mark of God’s glory (Romans 3:23)–and hence, find it easier to be selfish than do right.

We call this truth human depravity.

What this means in elections is that if a sizable minority or majority of Americans no longer believe in God and do not have biblical faith that produces character, self-control, sacrifice, and in a word, morality–then those people will use their freedom to vote for more money from the Treasury.

Many years ago, John Adams warned us that , “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

When we cease to be faithful and moral due to our human depravity, we will vote for those things that take away freedom (and bring God’s judgment).

This is the 47% that Mitt Romney got in trouble for mentioning. There is a growing segment of the American population that want the government to take care of them (depravity) as opposed to putting their trust in God (faith & morality).

I blame this sad state of affairs on the Church. We have failed to bring the message of Christ’s love, grace, power and hope to the masses in our nation. We have not expanded the culture of faith and morality that freedom requires to be sustainable.

So a growing percentage of the people want a government savior, not the Prince of Peace.

We, the Church, are at fault.

We need to repent.

Going into the November 6 election, this neglect is Barack Obama’s advantage. If a majority of people act out of their self-interest (human depravity), he will win the election. And if he does, secularism just might become the majority religion in our nation as it is in many European countries. And we will accelerate down the destructive pathway our European brethren are treading.

Mitt Romney doesn’t have the power of human depravity on his side. But he does have a secret weapon that is quietly amassing behind him: the power of prayer and repentance.

Many different prayer movements are launching in the next forty days among American believers to soften our hearts, ignite our faith, and invite the gracious hand of God to invade our double-minded nation.

One movement is America for Jesus–led by Anne Gimenez–which will take place in Philadelphia a few days from now. Shirley and I were a part of the original Washington for Jesus on April 29, 1980 that brought a season of renewal to our nation. Anne’s visionary husband, John, is now in heaven, but she has picked up the torch to call the country back to the Lordship of Christ. If you’re able to participate in AFJ 2012, here are the details.

Also this week another friend of mine and his team are starting forty days of worship on the Washington Ellipse near the White House. It is called “David’s Tent” and if you live in the DC area, please go down to the Mall night or day to join those that are worshipping Jesus 24-7.

Next week I will be in the DC area for another prayer thrust called “The Summons” in which intercessors are descending on the capital city for pray for our leaders and the coming elections. If you want to participate, here is the site to look up.

And if you are in other parts of the country and world, there are a number of prayer thrusts that are happening to call the Church to intercession, humility, repentance, and fundamental change. One takes its name from the famous 2 Chronicles 7:14 passage – “if my people“- and the other is a call to fasting and prayer for the next forty days.

When I got home from a meeting last night, I saw yet another announcement from Dr. John Hagee, American pastor and leading advocate for Israel:

“I am asking the Christians of America to join us in 40 days of prayer for this presidential election. These 40 days of prayer will begin on Sept. 28, 2012. You can do it individually or in groups, but prayer is the most powerful force God has given us to bring our nation back to righteousness. I’ll be saying more about this as the year progresses, but mark it on your calendar and start telling your family, friends, and church members now about the 40 days of prayer.”

A huge groundswell of prayer is beginning. Some of it will be for Barack Obama’s re-election, but most of it will be a cry for repentance and revival that will benefit Mitt Romney’s candidacy.

Will it be advantage “depravity” on November 6 or the secret weapon of answered prayer?

Only God knows what we deserve.

Let us pray.