ONLY ONE CANDIDATE IS RIGHT ON THE TWO MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES

December 28, 2011


In the upcoming presidential election, two issues are more important than any others: repealing Obamacare and halting illegal immigration. If we fail at either one, the country will be changed permanently.

Taxes can be raised and lowered. Regulations can be removed (though they rarely are). Attorneys general and Cabinet members can be fired. Laws can be repealed. Even Supreme Court justices eventually die.

But capitulate on illegal immigration, and the entire country will have the electorate of California. There will be no turning back.

Similarly, if Obamacare isn't repealed in the next few years, it never will be.

America will begin its ineluctable descent into becoming a worthless Western European country, with rotten health care, no money for defense and ever-increasing federal taxes to support the nanny state.

So let's consider which of the Republican candidates are most likely to succeed at these objectives.

In order to allow Democrats to indignantly denounce Republicans who said Obamacare would add to the deficit, the bill was structured so that no goodies get paid out immediately. That way, when the Congressional Budget Office was asked to determine if Obamacare was "revenue neutral" over its first 10 years, government accountants were looking at a bill that collected taxes for 10 years, but only distributed treats in the later years.

Starting at year 11, those accountants will be in for a big surprise when the government starts paying out Obamacare benefits without interruption.

Because of this accounting fraud, Obamacare can still be repealed. But as soon as all Americans have been thrown off their employer-provided insurance plans and are forced to start depending on the government for health care, Republicans will never be able to repeal it.

The vast complex of unionized government workers managing our health care from Washington will fight to keep their jobs (for more on this topic, see the Department of Education), voters will want their "free" government treats (for more on this topic, see Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security) -- and even if they don't, there won't be a private insurance market for them to go back to (for more on this topic, see IRS rules favoring employer-provided health care).

The only way to stop Obamacare is to beat Obama in 2012, and repeal it before the health care Leviathan is born.

Otherwise, starting in 2016, Republicans will run for office promising only to improve Obamacare. Newt Gingrich will be calling plans to reform it "right-wing social engineering."

All current Republican presidential candidates say they will overturn Obamacare. The question for Republican primary voters should be: Who is most likely to win?

2012 is not a year for a wild card. It's not a year for any candidate who will end up being the issue, instead of making Obama the issue. It's not a year for one wing of the Republican Party to be making a point with another wing. (And there are no Rockefeller Republicans left, anyway.) It's not a year to be gambling that America will vote for its first woman president, or that the country is ready for a nut-bar libertarian.

Running against an incumbent president in a make-or-break election, Republicans need a candidate with a track record of winning elections with voters similar to the entire American electorate.

Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich have never had to win votes beyond small, majority-Republican congressional districts.

Jon Huntsman, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum have won statewide elections, but Huntsman and Perry ran in extremely red states that don't resemble the American electorate. Only Romney and Santorum have won a statewide election in a blue state, making them our surest-bets in a general election.

But if Santorum wins, we lose on the second most important issue -- illegal immigration -- and he'll be the last Republican ever to win a general election in America.

Just as Americans ought to be able to learn the perils of a welfare state by looking at Greece, we ought to be able to learn the perils of illegal immigration by looking at California.

Massive legal and illegal immigration has already so changed the California electorate that no Republican can be elected statewide anymore. Not so long ago, this was a state that produced great Republican governors and senators like Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, S.I. Hayakawa and Pete Wilson.

If even Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman, two bright, attractive, successful female business executives -- one pro-life and one pro-choice -- can't win a statewide election in California spending millions of their own dollars in the middle of the 2010 Republican sweep, it's buenas noches, muchachos.

And yet, almost all Republican presidential candidates support some form of amnesty for illegals in order to appeal to the business lobby.

Among the most effective measures against illegal immigration is E-Verify, the Homeland Security program that gives employers the ability to instantly confirm that their employees' Social Security numbers are legitimate. It is more than 99 percent accurate, and no employee is denied a job without an opportunity to challenge the records.

Although wildly popular with Americans -- including Hispanic Americans -- the business lobby hates E-Verify. Employers like hiring non-Americans because they can pay illegal aliens less and ignore state and federal employment laws.

Any candidate who opposes E-Verify is not serious about illegal immigration. If anything, E-Verify ought to be made mandatory to get a job, to get welfare and to vote.

Kowtowing to business (while pretending to kowtow to Hispanics), Paul, Perry and Santorum oppose E-Verify. As a senator, Rick Santorum voted against even the voluntary use of E-Verify.

Jon Huntsman claims to support E-Verify, but also wants to give illegals amnesty as soon as the border is sealed -- as determined by someone other than us. Also, he gave driver's identification cards to illegal aliens in Utah. (You'd think a guy no one has ever heard of would be more careful about ID cards.)

Following his latest guru, Helen Krieble, Newt Gingrich is for amnesty, combined with second-class status for illegals. Instead of giving illegal aliens green cards, Newt proposes giving them "red cards" so they can stay, take American jobs, have children, receive welfare benefits, attend public schools -- and eventually be granted amnesty. The Republican primaries will be over before most voters realize what Newt's "red card" scheme entails.

Only Michele Bachmann and Mitt Romney aren't trying to sneak through amnesty for illegal aliens. Both support E-Verify.

Numbers USA, one of the leading groups opposed to our current insane immigration policies, gives Republican presidential candidates the following grades on immigration: Paul, F; Gingrich, D-minus; Huntsman, D-minus; Santorum, D-minus; Perry, D; Romney, C-minus; and Bachmann, B-minus.

And that was before Romney said last week that Obama's drunk-driving, illegal alien uncle should be deported!

That leaves us with Romney and Bachmann as the candidates with the strongest, most conservative positions on illegal immigration. As wonderful as Michele Bachmann is, 2012 isn't the year to be trying to make a congresswoman the first woman president.

Two Little Indians sitting in the sun; one was just a congresswoman and then there was one.

COPYRIGHT 2011 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK
1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106; 816-581-7500

nut-bar libertarian!



Yeah, the ronulans were crowing not long ago that Ann was for RP....

Can't say as I agree with the assertion that there are no Rockefeller Republicans or establishment GOP though. It is the Congress which must be motivated to end illegal immigration and the Congressionals are probably more important than the executive in the 2012 cycle especially to end Obamacare and illegal immigration.

Can't buy that Romney is conservative, if she only wants to make the point that he is "most electable" then fine but conservative he is not nor will ever be.

"...voters will want their "free" government treats (for more on this topic, see Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security)..."

Miss Coulter, I know you're patrician enough that nothing mortals do affects you, but there's nothing "free" about SS, Medicare, and Medicade. We paid into this for 40 years and counting. I benefitted from all three at one time or another, and I'm sure you're not so happy that I lived and didn't do my part to reduce the surplus population. Glad I disappointed you.

I have NO CLUE where Ms. Coulter is anymore....on much of anything! Once upon a time, Ann you were a conservative. Now? It wasn't so very long ago that I recall you telling Sean Hannity on his evening prime FNC show, speaking of McCain in 2008 "well Sean, we tried that in 2008 and we know how that ended up, don't we?". Your exact words, Ann. And NOW? You're doing some really heavy lifting for the biggest RINO (alongside Huntsman) in the field of GOP candidates. Rather than going after the REAL threat to our liberty & freedom (not to mention economic well being)--->BHO, you're spending all of your time and a great deal of energy launching attack after attack against Newt Gingrich! Why? Clearly he's the brightest and most articulate candidate in our current field!! Yeah, I know, you wanted Christie. Well dear he ain't running. And given his record on 2nd amendment, I'm happy he's not! So since you didn't get Christie, you're now pushing Romney, upon whose "Romney-Care" in Mass "Obama-Care" was modeled? Huh? Ann, I sincerely suggest that you get real, and spend more time dealing with the mess that BHO has created and continues to expand and much less telling US who WE should support/vote for! I rest my case. God Bless America, Keep Her Free & Strong! Semper Fi!

The point, Ken, is that once citizens become dependent upon government - the government and politicians that run it will never take those bennies away - they can't without hurting those who depend on it. Perhaps those benefits you received were paid for in full, but the vast majority of those on the dole get far more than they ever put in the system, see: Ida May Fuller, the first SS recipient paid in $24.75 and received $22,888.92 in return. This is a ponzi scheme and it is doomed to failure, leaving those who got in later holding the bag - paying the bills and receiving nothing in return. So get off your high horse about you being owed SS, etc. because you paid in. The vast majority will get nothing and have to pay more still to cover the debts owed. Consider yourself a very lucky SOB to have received anything at all.

Michele Bachmann. This election has got to be about issues, and Bachmann is right on the issues. The electorate voted in 2008 for a candidate who did cocaine through college, and may never have stopped for all we know. He is at least partly dark-skinned, which was historic. I'm willing to overlook Ms. Bachmann's gender, and I will not permit myself any male bias in 2012. If we don't start making our political process about issues and integrity, our experiment in self-governance is doomed. If we continue on our present path, we will be fighting again, soon, for our freedom. I think the only way we can retain our civil rule of order is to return ASAP to the Constitution. That can't be done overnight, since it involves education and social normalcy, but we had better start immediately. Michele Bachmann, hopefully President of the United States, as of 1/20/2013.

Ann has nailed this one far better than any other pubby or conservative commentator. I agree with the entire article 100%.

And I would add; don't get mad at those who call S.S. & Medicare as entitlements that need to be reformed.

Any anger should be directed at all those in Congress that pilfered away the S.S. surpluses on social engineering programs
that are total failures.
Those surpluses should have been collecting some form of interest over the years.

It is the career Politicians in Washington that I look to place blame for the longest running Ponzi scheme in history.
If the surpluses had been used wisely there would have been more time for a responsible Congress to reorganize this
mess that FDR helped to created.

Anne, I am a new guy on the block and long time Conservative. Your article was on the button.I notice comments seem to be from several liberals sneaking in their remarks about Romney. They know and we all should know Romney is the only candidate who will beat Obama. I was watching today the interview with Mitt and his wife on CNN yes that's it CNN .What fresh air compared to the sordid Gingrich history of this losers three marriages.This person Newt, wants to sit in the Oval Office and make Bill Clinton act like a Choir boy.Then revelations coming out of the woodwork Cong. Paul's Notes. What was weird when asked about the anti-semitic remarks he said he did not write them !. Mitt as Gov of this State and he won Governorship in a State that is two thirds Catholic and Democratic electorate.We read and the Anti Romney voter try to associate Mitts Uninsured ( 8 %) with Obama care . It's further from the truth . The reason that something had to be done was because the unisured in the State were going to the Hospital ER's for freebie medical services. As a consequence our Health care premiums were increasing. Mitt made sure that these unimsured were not Govt handouts but from the PRIVATE SECTOR. MA is not the only State that has this problem .Romney is not perfect but when stacked up againgst the other candidates he is the NEXT PRESIDENT.There are thousands of Conservatives voting for Romney because he has the least baggage , he is articulate and most important has Business experience getting companies back on their feet . Let's not choose another McCain for heavens sake.

Nobs said: "And I would add; don't get mad at those who call S.S. & Medicare as entitlements that need to be reformed.

Any anger should be directed at all those in Congress that pilfered away the S.S. surpluses on social engineering programs
that are total failures.
Those surpluses should have been collecting some form of interest over the years.

It is the career Politicians in Washington that I look to place blame for the longest running Ponzi scheme in history.
If the surpluses had been used wisely there would have been more time for a responsible Congress to reorganize this
mess that FDR helped to created.". SPOT ON!!!

Back when he created it (with the help of Congress), FDR's own Treasury Sec challenged him on "social security" saying that the tax created to support it was "regressive". To which FDR replied in essence: "Yes, I intended it to be so! This way, no politician can come along later and undo what I've done!". It was nothing but a true Ponzi Scheme when it was created, and has been nothing but that since! Sadly for us & the USA! No effort to reform this mess has ever been successful. But there's really never been much of an effort since the politicians have been ROBBING the so-called "social security trust fund" since it was created in order to, as Nob says, fund a variety of social engineering schemes!! Here's a couple of pretty good quotes which speak to the essence of this:

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson
and:

"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." - Alexis de Tocqueville
Unfortunately for us and our nation, as time has progressed we have forgotten these telling statements by 2 very brilliant founders/supporters of our Republic. I submit it's time that we remember them! Semper Fi!

Well Billyc, you have a right to your opinion, which we all respect. But I respectfully disagree. Calling Romney "conservative" is about as far-fetched as calling BHO "responsible"! And again, respectfully, you're really in tune with the "baggage" crowd regarding Gingrich. And that's fine. But where were all the "baggage investigators" back in 2007-8 when BHO showed up? Nobody then, and to this time still wants to talk about HIS past history of radicalism along with his still sealed college transcripts! You may ask "what's your point" in response...and I'll say that rather than focusing on Gingrich's past I think it more appropriate to focus on where he stands TODAY! I see that he has a strong stand on the issues, unlike your former governor Romney who appears to be all over the map depending on what time of day it is and who he's talking to? Might want to give this some thought, if you really are conservative as you claim? Again, w/all due respect! Semper Fi!

Another Romney campaign speech....ugh! What happened to the lady who deounced McCain back in 2008? With regard to the myth of Romney's "electability," US presidential elections are decided by independent voters. That's the "conventional wisdom," and it's true. However, the punditry inevitably misses the fact that the elections are not decided by independent voters who attend Manhattan cocktail parties. Elections aren't decided by independent voters in Boston, New York or San Francisco. Elections are decided by independent voters in Virginia, North Carolina, Florida and Ohio. I, and many North Carolina independents, are independents precisely because we refuse to be a part of a party that nominates the likes of Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney. Of late, we've been barraged by poll results from New Hampshire, where Romney leads in the 30s, to Gingrich's teens. The media doesn't bother to show the polls in Ohio where the figures are exactly reversed, with Gingrich near 40 and Romney in the teens. Polls show similar results in Virginia, NC and Florida. There is NO enthusiasm for a Massachusetts John Kerry-lite moderate big government Republican in the South or in most of the Midwest... where the election will be decided. Those same pundits who tell us how "electable" Romney is also tell us we don't dare make "social issues" a part of the campaign. Recently in California black voters voted against gay marriage by a margin of something like 75%. Blacks and Hispanics (who are overwhelmingly Catholic) tend to be socially conservative. If we did make "social issues" an integral part of the campaign, I believe we'd make vast inroads into the minority loyalty to the Democrat party. Too, we'd attract a lot of die-hard Southern Democrats, who would rather stay home than vote for either Obama or Romney, but who would wholeheartedly support a true social Conservative, as they supported Mr. Reagan. They say the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results. Have we not learned yet that the Ford/Dole/McCain/Romney type of "electable" candidates aren't very electable since they lose every time? How about we try a novel approach this time, and nominate a REAL conservative like we did in 1980. Seems like that was an election that had a pretty good result. Perhaps if Miss Coulter would get out of her NY/DC/CA bubble and pay some attention to what the voters in the States who will decide the election feel, she woukln't be such a relentless cheerleader for Romney... Or do you WANT Obama to win?
John Field Pankow
Asheville, NC

Whatever excuse you need to look down your nose.

We're doomed.

I'd rather chance it with the First Woman President.

PRESIDENT PALIN. Has a nice ring.... don't it?

Meantime.... back in reality.... This nation is so absolutely screwed!... by it's own elected officials.

Thanks King Oblabba! Thanks Washington. Thanks Drive By Media. Take a friggin' bow!

First of all, the nation is broke so Obamacare will be repealed by default anyway. Also, wouldn't Romney support it since he was the architect behind it? Miss Coulter, you are such a tool if you are gullible enough to believe that Mitt Romney has had a change of heart. Seriously, the guy is a class-A pick up artist in the political world.

As for immigration, again it doesn't matter as long as the country is broke.

So really, the mostest importantest issue facing our nation is a government without the money to support its basic constitutional functions. But Romney only seeks to make government better, not smaller, which is not conservatism, it's liberalism.

Why Miss Coulter continues to support a liberal hack like Romney is beyond any semblance of sanity.

To quote James Carville in 1992, it's the economy...

Giant flushing sound... and the takers proudly declare their right to help make it happen.

What happened to the real Americans... who never take one penny from the government pusher, who know that Social Security WILL NOT be there for them,... and therefor never plan to retire... and who,..... will even spend time in prison, if need be,.... to stand for their God given right to make their own choices about the use of doctors, hospitals and medical insurance.

Screw President Obama and all those who helped him become the monster that we are all now witnessing!

Show me ANY American who wants MORE government involvement in any aspect of their lives, and I'll show you either a worthless piece of crap Liberal.... or a senior who has been caught up in the system and has no choice.

Romney is another McCain. He calls Obastard "a very nice guy" "just wrong on the issues" - He won't point out to America that Obastard is a communist now and he won't if he debates him. Obastard is not a nice guy, he is destroying our country and our lives!

The question you really should be asking is why doesn't she support the nut-bar libertarian.

Oh boy! Another election where conservatives will have to go into the voting booth "holding their noses." I'm so pumped.

I will be elated if Americans are smart enough to elect Mitt Romney.

I'll say it again, Ann has nailed this one dead solid. She has taken an accurate assessment of the American voting public and the question of who has the best shot at actually winning this thing, and she correctly notes that neither Perry nor Gingrich has ever won a major election outside of solid red territory. Romney has actually achieved something which none of the loudmouths or Jim Robinsons of the world or triple-chromosome super conservatives have ever done i.e. gotten himself elected governor of Massachusetts as a Republican.

We cannot afford to lose this coming election, the United States could not plausibly survive five more years of this shit starting from now. The difference between Romney and Bork Obunga and his minions is gigantic. With Romney in the whitehouse:

Apology tours will end.
The principal of fish/snail darters/shad/delta-smelts/lizards over people and human infrastructure will end.
The present Gaea-worshiping anti-energy policies will end.
Obunga-care will end. Anybody claiming there is more than a coincidental resemblance between what Romney did with health care and Obunga-care is either a liar or an idiot.
The present Bleeding-in-front-of-sharks foreign policy will end...
The Dodd/Frank/Freddie/Fannie policies which created the catastrophe of 2008 will end,....

I could go on but I shouldn't have to.

You need to sober up...

No, please go on.
I was waiting for the "And pigs will fly outta my butt" part.

Even MORE important, it's great to see that she agrees with ME!

I agree with Ann's accurate analysis that health care and immigration are the two biggest issues facing the US. Unfortunetly, I disagree with her conclusion, and am again, and continually, disappointed by her preferences towards Romney.

Romeny-Care is toxic enough that it should disqualify him. Claiming he is the most capable of repealing it is highly dubious. He may, and this point is highly argueable, be the most electable to put him in the position to fully repeal that garbage from American policy. He also is the least likely to actually fully repeal Obama-Care.

Some Related Information:
http://thehill.com/video/campaign/20148 ... -principle

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 11436.html

What is the purpose of winning if we do not put a canidate into place that will actually and fully fix the issues. Why would I want to vote for the guy who made the slightly less invasive version of Obama Care onto his own state which is costing them almost 5 times the original estimate every year.

Ann's way off the mark on this one. Repealing Obamacare is important, very important, but nowhere near as important as getting the economy going again. I can see the next President wasting four years fighting with Democrats and RINOs to repeal Obamacare and accomplishing little else (just as Obama wasted 2/3rds of his Presidency getting it enacted). Had Obama focused on the economy instead of Obamacare, there's a good chance he wins easilly in 2012. Instead he's 99% unelectable. The next President will end up the same way if they devote too much time to Obamacare.

As for the illegals, it's not only business that doesn't want e-verify. The social security and medicare taxes illegals and their employers are paying into the systems, and can't get benefits from, are the only thing keeping these programs solvent. If all these people became legal, or were replaced by legal workers, the systems would collapse.

Lastly, I'm getting pretty tired of hearing Romney called a RINO. He isn't, and the term RINO is becoming as overused as sexual harassment is on the left. John McCain is a RINO. In the 2008 election he supported cap & tax, gun control, closing Gitmo, leaving Iraq/Afghanistan, universal healthcare, repealing the Bush tax cuts, amnesty for illegals, and every other policy Obama supported. People forget that McCain is a Liberal who only ran as a Republican so he could win an open congressional seat in Arizona. Romney may be a flip-flopper when it's politically convenient to do so, but he's not someone who's got a Liberal core like a true RINO has.

In the debates, while others talk of repealing ObamaCare, Romney has said that he will issue a "waiver" to all 50 states. It doesn't sound like he actually wants to repeal it.

At some point, the two are inseparable.


You actually think Obama focusing on the economy could be good for the economy?


A RINO is a Republican who is not conservative. I think Romney qualifies. If he flip-flops when it's politically convenient, then he can't be trusted, and he is the worst kind of politician.

Oh God....Ann makes good points. I was really liking Newt, now Romney's looking better.

They have been collecting interest. We have been paying interest to ourselves during that period of time that Soc Sec taxes are put in the form of T-Bonds, and that time at which they are sold to cover outgoing checks.

Soc Security "surplus" is a nice theory, but two things get in your way. One is the Constitution and the other is the Supreme Court.

There is no trust fund and there never has been. There is no provision in the Constitution to allow the Federal Govt to be an insurance company, so the FDR lawyers argued Social Security is just a tax - and that court agreed to uphold the law, if it were treated like any and every other tax, with the money just dumped into the general fund, then it would be Constitutional.

The case is Helvering v Davis (1937) and the ruling is:
"The proceeds of both the employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way."

There is no trust fund and there never has been.

How does this strike you? —
"We, and each of us, covenant and promise that we will not reveal any of the secrets of this, the first token of the Aaronic priesthood, with its accompanying name, sign or penalty. Should we do so, we agree that our throats be cut from ear to ear and our tongues torn out by their roots" (W. M. Paden, Temple Mormonism, 1931, p. 18).

There are other such oaths and occult practices in Mormonism. I will not list them here; it is enough to have to write out one of these.

Mitt Romney has sworn this ghastly oath and several others, perhaps hundreds of times, until 1990 when the LDS (Mormon) church took much of the verbal aspect of this out of their “temple”ceremony. For obvious reasons relating to fears of modern appearances, much was expunged in 1990 after over 100 years of making such oaths. As a practicing Mormon, in their “temple” ceremonies, Romney still commits this blasphemy in a more inferred way, along with much more, with each visit to the Mormon temple.

Please understand this: These rituals are NOT equal to some symbolic lighting of incense or lighting candles for Mormons. These rites are as serious as mortal breathing; and as for the hereafter, their life-after-death is incumbent upon these things to the point of whether or not they will know and see their children on the other side. Whether or not they will be “exalted” or spend eternity as servants of others.

Should this effect your ability to vote for Romney as President of The United States? Does it say important things about one who would associate such atrocity, and commit such sacrilege in the name of The Savior?
It is not Jesus Christ who requires such secrets and bloody oaths, but some-thing quite the opposite.

I suggest that all Christian voters simply do their own research and decide for themselves. There are plenty of sound, factual, and referenced sites on the Internet where you can find the truth. Then, please vote your own heart and conscience; that is the American way. First, do some serious research about what Mormonism actually is. As often happens in the world, the scrubbed-clean face and white shirts of Mormon missionaries, along with the smiling, warm, and wholesome family depictions made in their advertisements, hide a much different belief system behind those facades.

I do not suggest that Mitt Romney or the average Mormon necessarily hides these evil things from you for evil purposes. They are simply born into, or drawn into, and then converted to what seems to be clean, wholesome, and Christian on the surface. Most are simply following what they believe in their hearts is good and right. What I DO suggest is that Mormonism draws it’s members into an increasingly occult, and twisted belief system, and that a person of leadership quality should soon recognize that which takes them further and further away from the teachings of Jesus Christ. In my opinion, such a system is the very definition of evil; and not that hard to recognize for a stable and sound-minded person.

I also believe that when a person who has Christ in their heart, finds themselves in a Mormon temple dragging their thumb across their throat to symbolize their willingness to have their throat cut if they reveal some secret ritual, a reasonably wise and stable person would feel something desperately wrong at that point. Then, to be required to do such things, supposedly in Christ’s name, should send a Christian running for the exit!

It is reasonable to suggest that a man of Romney’s age and accomplishment should have long ago recognized the blasphemous and occult aspects of Mormonism, and had the strength and wisdom to remove himself and his family from it.

Only you can answer what that means about the man, and how you feel about it as he asks for your vote, and aspires to the most powerful political office in the World.

Much has been discussed since Romney decided to first run for President concerning whether or not Mormons are true Christians. Most or perhaps all Mormons Believe themselves to be Christians. After many years of research, while I think individual Mormons who count themselves as Christian are so in their hearts, I do not personally think that the Mormon “religion” per se actually is. At some point, beliefs and rituals become so much in opposition to the teachings of Christ, that one MUST say that they are not Christian. I simply cannot count ANY coercion as being Christian, let alone threats of bloody violence.

But, perhaps what should be the focus of discussion is not whether Mormons consider themselves to be Christians, but what their church teaches on a daily basis about YOUR chosen religion and Your faith, and how there is NO salvation for you, the non-Mormon. Here are just two of the thousands of available teachings by Mormon leaders on this subject:

Mormon Apostle Bruce R. McConkie stated:



Past Mormon Church President Ezra Taft Benson said, speaking of Mormonism:



This, I think, briefly shows the audacity, complete lack of respect, and even inferred disdain by Mormons for the Word of Jesus Christ: which is that salvation comes through Him and Him Alone. The history of the Mormon church is replete with such proclamations, that Their church alone, and more often, Joseph Smith himself is central to everything; there being no salvation except though HIS actions, HIS teachings, and through HIS, the only “true” church.

A summary would be that the secret rites, ONLY found within the Mormon temple, sworn to at the peril of having one’s throat cut, are central to Salvation; and that therefore, every other Christian Church is apostate, without the possibility of any non-Mormon Christians being saved. This, regardless of the very plain Word of Jesus Christ.

Again, please find these things for yourselves, through your own research. There is much much more to discover about Mormonism. For instance, the current election might be a good time to discover that Mormons have a hundred and fifty year old, unfulfilled PROPHECY, made by their most revered founder, Joseph Smith, stating that they, the Mormons, will one day take over the United States Government.

Having done much research myself, my own studied opinion is that Mormonism is the very definition of “The Wolf”, having clothed himself as The Lamb of God.