Jesus Christ Is Lord

That every knee should bow and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father!

Why So Many Prominent Catholics Are Supporting Romney

Posted by Job on May 12, 2007

Here ( is a perfect example of what of Live Prayer was talking about regarding conservative Christians’ being completely dishonest in their support of Mormon Mitt Romney, the man who wants you to convert to his false religion, fill you full of demons, and take you to the lake of fire for an eternity. , a Catholic, does his best to make Mormonism just another bunch of Christians who do not pray to Mary, angels, and saints with lies like this: “Governor Romney amusingly replied, “This may sound strange to some, but my grandchildren will be eagerly awaiting presents to be delivered to their homes by a bearded man in a red suit led by a pack of flying reindeer. The lead reindeer, by the way, has a red light bulb for a nose — certainly a YouTube scandal waiting to happen.” Mormons celebrate Christmas too!” (This was in response to a softball setup question from the National Review’s Katherine Jean Lopez, another religious right Catholic who is supporting Romney, and actually is denouncing those who are fighting the Lord’s battle by righteously opposing him. Please realize that Kate O’Beirne of the National Review attacked David Kuo, whose book exposed the lies of the Bush administration, merely because Kuo was a Protestant who attacked his Catholic boss. And by the way, since Christmas is a totally Catholic invention that is utterly abiblical as Yeshua HaMashiach our Saviour was born on the Jewish holiday the day of atonement, if you wish to use this as yet another reason to reject Christmas go ahead.) There are differences between doctrines of churches. But the values at the core of the Christian faith, the Jewish faith and many other religions (note, here Gaynor allows Romney to call Mormonism Christianity unchallenged) are very, very similar and it’s that common basis that we have to support and find ability to draw people to rather than to point out the differences between our faiths. … Because Governor Romney believes in God … (Not only does Gaynor fail to mention that the Mormon god is NOT the Christian one, but by capitalizing the reference to the false Mormon god, he states that the Christian god is the same as the Mormon one. Well, maybe the Catholic god IS the same as the Mormon god, since both groups supersede the Bible for extrabiblical revelation, and both believe in elevation of man by virtue of Catholics praying to Mary and saints. Hey, before you accuse me of Catholic bashing, address your outrage to Catholic Romney defenders like Gaynor, Sean Hannity, Jean Lopez, and O’Beirne.) Exactly! Most Americans don’t want a Satanist in the Oval Office, a good person of any faith will do nicely, and a co-religionist who violates fundamental tenets of his or her and still professes to be a member in good standing will be repudiated by his or her co-religionists. Three Roman Catholics have run for president as a majority party candidate. So, Gershon calls Mormons co – religionists. All right, that is fine. If Gerson wants to make Roman Catholicism another false pseudo – Christian cult, by calling them his co – religionists, then who am I to argue?

Governor Romney explained:“There’s not very much that’s well known about my church because it’s not broadly based throughout the nation with large numbers of people who are adherents. When anything is unknown, people are going to be a little skeptical. But I think, again, as individuals look at my life and my family’s life, they’ll recognize that my values are quintessential American values; that my religious beliefs are consistent with the religious beliefs of other Judeo-Christian faiths, such as a belief in the divinity of God and the need to need to provide service to others, the preeminence of the family unit. These types of elements are what America looks for in a leader.” And rightly so. Well, since Jews apparently hate the term “Judeo – Christian”, then I guess that if that is the term that Gaynor and other Catholics, Mormons, and similar wish to apply to their pseudo – Christian cults as opposed to actual Bible – based Christianity, that is fine with me. As President, Governor Romney would not Mormonize America. He would respect religious liberty and America’s religious heritage instead of trying to trying to transform America into a secular extremist state (like the defunct Soviet Union or France) and to restrict the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment to churches, synagogues, temples and mosques. Excuse me, but what would prevent a Muslim, Buddhist, or Satanist from doing the same? “But the particular doctrines of a church I don’t think are a major part in a political sense.” They were not supposed to do so. That’s why the Constitution prohibits a religious test for federal office. All right, the Catholic is LYING here. He knows full well that an invididual or religious group making a decision to oppose Romney because of his religion is not the same as the government or even a political party barring him from running for that reason, and as a matter of fact that the Constitution that he loves so much gives us precisely that right by virtue of freedom of religion and expression. Gaynor is actually demanding that Bible – believing Christians surrender their constitutional rights. In service of whose agenda?As to funding faith-based institutions, Governor Romney pointed out not only that “we don’t fund faith-based institutions, other than when they’re performing a non-faith role,” but also that “some of the faith-based institutions, particularly in the inner city, are doing a lot better job helping the poor, helping kids, helping families get on their feet than some government social service agencies,” concluding that “helping them in their secular role is, of course, fine,” but helping them in a religious role is “unacceptable.” Now this is the main reason why Bible – believing Christians should immediately stop associating with the religious right. Now Mormons are not a worry here, as their church currently opposes receiving state funds (though that could quickly change, just as their church changed their teachings on polygamy to allow Utah to become a state and their more overt racist teachings because of civil rights laws that would have threatened the status of Brigham Young University), make no mistake: Catholics are. Listen: the notion that religious institutions should receive government funds were LONG anathema to the religious right, with prominent exceptions like some segregationists advocating school vouchers so that low – income whites could skirt forced integration policies. That only changed when the conservative movement was merged with TRADITIONALLY DEMOCRATIC CATHOLICS under  – who lest we forget signed the nation’s most liberal abortion law in the 1960s. The payoff? Reagan was pro – illegal immigration, setting the stage for policies that ultimately let tens of millions of MOSTLY CATHOLIC Hispanics to come into the country, and Reagan appointed two (pro – abortion!) Catholic judges to the Supreme Court in Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy. (The Bushes have since given us three more; Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, and Samuel Alito.) It is hilarious how (Catholic) Rush Limbaugh used to hammer Bill Clinton over the illegal immigration issue when the truth is that Clinton did more to stop illegal immigration than Reagan and both Bushes have combined, and Limbaugh knows it. In any event, there was a REASON why all of these Blaine Amendments were passed when Catholic immigration to this country greatly increased: it has ALWAYS been the agenda of the Vatican to get the government of every nation on the planet to support the Catholic Church with taxes, for the Catholic Church to be paid by the government to deliver government services, for the Catholic Church and the state to “partner” on delivery of services and functions, etc. Now, as the Catholic Church takes on a bigger and bigger role (and can do it cheaper, more efficiently, and better), the state takes on less and less. Pretty soon, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the government to extricate itself from the Catholic Church because the state needs the services that the Catholic Church provides and has no viable alternative. This gives the Catholic Church great influence over the government! We have already seen an example of this with the Catholic Church flexing its muscles by threatening to withdraw its counseling and adoption services when the state attempts to impose the same regulations on the Catholic Church that everyone else who receives state funds has to obey. Now I first began to oppose school vouchers after reading novel “Piercing The Darkness”, but you can just imagine what would happen were a huge percentage of children attending Catholic schools with government funds: the government would try to impose regulation, the Catholic Church would threaten to shut the schools down or kick the voucher kids out, and that would be the end of that! So as we see in this article where Mitt and Ann Romney praise THE VERY SORT OF GOVERNMENT WELFARE THAT THE MORMON CHURCH OPPOSES AND DOES NOT ALLOW ITS OWN MEMBERS TO TAKE, Romney is willing to push the Catholic agenda.

What is REALLY DISTURBING is how the Romneys exploiting inner city blacks in doing so. First of all, we know the racist teachings of Mormons, which despite their claims still influences the church. But realize that this was key to the Reagan strategy of aligning neo – segregationist Christian fundamentalists and conservative Catholics. Please recall that Reagan kicked off his Presidential campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, where the civil rights workers were murdered, with a pro – states rights speech. See, the “small government” mantra of conservatives was not the legitimate libertarianism of people like Ron Paul, but rather was code words exploiting the racial anger of whites over Great Society and affirmative action programs meant to uplift blacks as well as the aforementioned forced integration policies. Please realize that many of these same whites supported the New Deal policies of Roosevelt and the similar policies of Truman and Kennedy, back when they only helped whites (please see this book and this article), and also supported farm programs, price supports, and protection of American industry from foreign competition. So, they supported smaller government for blacks, not for themselves! These “neo – conservatives” (not to be confused with Jewish liberals who became conservative when they realized that secularism was a bigger threat to them than was Christianity, though such Jews HAVE gone on to make an odd political alliance with conservative Catholics … please keep in mind that the most recent Vatican council ended active overt attempts by Catholics to convert Jews while non – John Hagee evangelical and fundamentalist Christians still make converting Jews a priority) did the perfect bait – and – switch: getting whites angry at government programs for blacks, and then claiming that churches would do a better job at providing the very programs and services that they opposed in the first place! How was this possible? Simple: it was IMPOSSIBLE to OPENLY ADMIT that the REAL REASON why they opposed these programs was because of their intention to help black people. Instead, they had to build up huge layers of dishonesty, claiming that the reason was that the programs were “inefficient”, “mismanaged”, “abused”, “corrupt”, “harmful to the economy”, and “created dependency and poor values for the very people that the government was supposed to help.” While true, why is this not said for, say, FARM PROGRAMS? Or public schools, which are attended by millions of kids whose parents could easily afford private education (why do places like Beverly Hills and Santa Monica even have public schools)? We do not even want to talk about how much taxpayer money is wasted on building country club public schools for affluent children in order to convince their parents to keep their kids in public schools. But in any event, after awhile, these people began to believe their own lies, and this is even moreso the case with the post – 60s conservatives raised on them: their parents can’t bring themselves to admit the real reason why they switched parties and moved to the suburbs. So, if you cannot say: “I oppose HUD because it takes black people off the street and out of shacks and gives them houses similar to mine” but instead claim “I oppose HUD because it traps black people in poverty”, then you will ultimately start believing your own lie and start supporting giving the very same money that you were giving to HUD to the Catholic Church (and other groups) to house these same black people and call yourself “a small government conservative.” Now PLEASE do not mistake this as a defense for Great Society programs, but rather how illegitimate opposition into them evolved into support for transferring public funding for programs that the church out to be providing anyway WITH CHURCH FUNDS to the Catholic Church (and others).

Now, here is the best example of Romney pushing the Catholic agenda: Further, Governor Romney respects the religious freedom of people of other religions, as illustrated by his urging the Massachusetts Legislature on March 10, 2006 to work with him on “a bill…to ensure that religious institutions are able to participate in the important work of adoption in a way that always respects and never forces them to compromise their firmly held beliefs.” Governor Romney’s press release on the matter read as follows: “DEFENDING RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, ROMNEY TO FILE BILL EXEMPTING RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS FROM GAY ADOPTION REQUIREMENT “Calling it an issue of ‘religious liberty,’ Governor Mitt Romney today said he plans to file legislation to permit religious institutions to perform adoptions without violating the tenets of their faith. Now stuff like this is why I am convinced that my most important entry to date on this weblog was my warning that Bible – believing Christians should not allow their opposition to the sin of homosexuality become homophobia, which would open the door to all sorts of demons that would ultimately allow the Christian to be manipulated by the forces of anti – Christ through culture and politics. YES, homosexuality is a sin. But if you are going to receive STATE MONEY and provide STATE SERVICES, you have to abide by STATE RULES. Romney was merely aiding the Catholic Church in a power play and power grab against the state.

Gaynor then invokes John Kennedy (again, if Catholics want to call themselves another pseudo – Christian cult like the Mormons, who am I to argue?) and then writes this ABSOLUTELY CHILLING PASSAGE: “The problem for genuienly religious people of any faith is NOT Governor Romney or his personal religious preference, but secular extremism, which arbitrarily redefined the institutional separation of church and state contemplated by America’s Founders as absolute separation of church and state mandating governmental neutality between religion and irreligion and prohibiting governmental support for religion generally, as though America is an agnostic or atheistic country. Governor Romney may be the person who paves the way for a return to the constitutional path suddenly abandoned by the United States Supreme Court in 1947 and resulting in a number of other judicial activist Supreme Court decisions as the Court slid down a slippery slope after leaving the constitutional path. Like President Kennedy, Governor Romney has assured his fellow Americans that no religious leader will dictate to him if he is elected President of the United States. UNlike President Kennedy, Governor Romney refused to embrace absolute separation of church and state to please secular extremists and to calm irrational fears. That, America’s Founders would enthusiastically cheer. Governor Romney, they would joyfully befriend, not foolishly fear. As John Marshall, America’s greatest Chief Justice commented: “[W]ith us Christianity and Religion are identified. It would be strange indeed, if with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer to it, and exhibit relations to it.” That’s NOT absolute separation of church and state. To be sure, America’s Constitution (including the First Amendment) respected the private right of conscience and repudiated the idea of government compelling religious practice, but it acknowledged God (dated “in the Year of our Lord”), accorded Sunday special significance (not counted it toward the days that the President has to acted on a bill passed by Congress) and sought “the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” surely from the Creator who bestowed upon people those rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness asserted in the Declaration of Independence.”

See, this is how this fellow’s lies are exposed. What Marshall was merely speaking of was the presupposition that all of the nation’s vital institutions, public and private, would be run by and made up of people of the Christian faith. Marshall DID NOT MEAN that the government money should fund religious institutions. While I agree that there was never a hard or fast law or court ruling prohibiting such, it was never needed. Why? BECAUSE NO ONE WANTED IT! AFTER ALL, THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED BY PEOPLE FLEEING PERSECUTION AT THE HANDS OF STATE CHURCHES! As such, THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO PRECEDENT FOR LARGE SCALE TRANSFER OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS UNTIL THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION (under the charitable choice welfare reform provision inserted by ), PRECEDENTS WHICH THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION GREATLY EXPANDED.

And it is very interesting that this fellow mentions 1947. Why is that? Simple. Before Roosevelt’s New Deal, the government provided very little in the way of services to ANYBODY. (The income tax and most other tax policies were primarily started to pay for WARS.) It was only after Roosevelt GREATLY EXPANDED THE ROLE AND REACH OF GOVERNMENT with the New Deal that it became an issue, and thus the Supreme Court in 1947 handled the issue appropriately. Now yes, before the atheist revolution, there were cases where the government transferred money to religious and private groups, but those were only in special cases, such as reimbursing religious schools for education costs in sparsely populated areas where building and maintaining public schools were unviable. There WERE no arrangements outside of that, because as a general rule before Roosevelt there very few government programs and services to speak of to begin with, and not only that there were very few people demanding them. 

So, Christians really need to be supporting people like Ron Paul. Why? Because instead of going after people who will allow us to believe the LIE that we can somehow “Christianize” our government programs after the manner of the church – run or church – influenced governments in countries that the Catholic Church dominated (again, please realize that the Church of England was founded in rebellion against the Catholic Church, and America was founded in no small part due to rebellion against the Church of England), we need to change the debate to why these programs are necessary in the first place. Instead of thinking that we are somehow turning this nation back to God by turning America into what France, Portugal, and Spain were in the 1500s (and you Christian Zionists in the religious right, please remember how Jews were treated by these church – run states), we should be asking ourselves whether the way to turn this nation back to God is to return our government to its original pre – Roosevelt and Johnson state, so that people will depend upon God and turn to the baptized body of believers for help rather than the state.

Look, you see where following big government big business Republicans like Nixon (see our “engage China” policy), Reagan, and both Bushes has gotten us. (Better yet, see where it has gotten Israel). Why go for another big business (remember, Mitt Romney is a Wall Street guy; international investment banker secretly backed by the Bushes) big government (remember his universal healthcare scheme in Massachusetts, which will transfer even more money to their Catholic hospitals … do you want that to go nationwide?) Republican? Now I have been promoting Mike Huckabee myself (I am not Southern Baptist, but am very fond of them), but IndependentConservative (a Duncan Hunter fan who is willing to consider Paul) warned me that Huckabee had issues, and he is right: Huckabee is a tax – cut and spend Republican after the manner of George Bush.

So then, why are conservative Catholics backing Romney rather than Huckabee? My theory is that it is a power play, plain and simple. Do not be deceived: this Catholic – Protestant thing has never died, and it never will. First off, if the President isn’t going to be Catholic (and they know that Giuliani has no shot), they would prefer that he be Mormon rather than Protestant. Why haven’t they backed Mormons and other non – Protestants before? Because none of them have had a chance to win before. Further, Catholics know that once the threat of the “evil Hillary Clinton” (a specter that Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, etc. has created to fill Christians with fear knowing full well that we have had Democratic presidents in the past, and that this current batch of Republicans have done more to undermine our tradition of Protestant conservatism than defend it) is done away with, then Bible – believing Christian Republicans will all of a sudden discover that their opposition to Mormonism. Democrats? Well, they will have voted for someone else. Romney would have nowhere to turn to but the very same Catholics that put him in office for political support, and Romney would be able to do more for Catholics than any Catholic president could (in no small part because the watchdog groups would be distracted by looking for any evidence of his helping Mormons). Consider this: with five Catholics on the Supreme Court and with Catholics making up 5 of the last 6 GOPers Supreme Court (O’Connor, Kennedy, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, with Souter the only Protestant), if a Catholic OR Protestant were to be the next GOP President, the next pick (or even the next TWO picks) would HAVE to be fundamentalist Protestant. Otherwise, the Catholic – Protestant alliance on the right would crack. But with Romney in office, he could – and almost certainly would – nominate two Catholics (or a Catholic and a Mormon) and no one would bat an eye.

And best of all, Protestant Christianity in this country would be that much more politically marginalized by the fact that the party which represents the majority of Bible – believing Protestant Christians will have elected a Mormon that they neither want, like, support, or trust! Even the left has made it clear that they would prefer Romney over anyone that Jerry Falwell or James Dobson is likely to support, first out of spite but also out of hope that Mormons would join their “minority” coalition.

Therefore, it is no wonder that the media and the big contributors have done their best to make the GOP race into a three man horserace between two guys who have no shot in the primary or the general election (John McCain and Rudy Giuliani) and Mitt Romney while doing their best to dissuade or ignore other options. Look at their agenda: where they really want to take this country and the planet. Even the secular left who wants to keep church and state separate will readily sacrifice that in order to fully integrate America into the global community, and is there a more “globalist” organization around than the Roman Catholic Church? Come to think of it, the Catholics INVENTED globalization and have been practicing it since the very beginning, because it came out of Rome, the empire that dominated the known world. Well, looks like Rome wants their global empire back. They have the third world through religion (please note how Pope Benedict XVI was in Brazil, giving that nation their own saint that you KNOW that they all are going to pray to … look if you are going to pray to something that makes it a god even if it isn’t the “main” god, please realize that Roman paganism there was the main most powerful god and other lesser gods, and most prayed and served to the lesser gods because they feared the main god, who wasn’t very nice, so by their practice of elevating people to saints based on good works to the Catholic Church, then yes Catholicism allows you to “progress to godhood” just like Mormons, and please note that like Mormons they emphasize works too), many claim that they have Europe through the EU (which I now believe to be an oversimplification), and unless Bible – believing Christians rise up they will soon have America if the church – state protections are removed. (Getting America would be huge, because America is where a lot of the world’s main international financial institutions are located.) And Bible – believing Christians, you KNOW what that would lead to. The question is: whose side are you on, and on which side will you fight? Technorati tag:  


5 Responses to “Why So Many Prominent Catholics Are Supporting Romney”

  1. I am not Southern Baptist, but am very fond of them


    The only thing I’ve taken issue with them over is something I take issue with Christians in general about and that is the matter of making people think that they must “tithe”, but any issue I have with the Southern Baptists is nothing compared to the issues I have with groups that separated from them, like Paul Morton’s Full Gospel Baptists money changing denomination.

    The Southern Baptists have an EXTENSIVE catalog if papers exposing Mormons on the Southern Baptist web site.

    Once upon a time (slavery) the Southern Baptists were really messed up, but they’ve cleaned up their act and as far as denominations go, they’ve got things much more together than most others out there and teach far more truth.

    Some take issue with their “no tongue talking” rule, but I say, once we see someone who claims the gift of tongues actually able to minister to someone who speaks another language, both me and the Southern Baptists will tell them that they are welcome to speak in tongues as the Lord leads.

  2. Cameron said

    ““DEFENDING RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, ROMNEY TO FILE BILL EXEMPTING RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS FROM GAY ADOPTION REQUIREMENT “Calling it an issue of ‘religious liberty,’ Governor Mitt Romney today said he plans to file legislation to permit religious institutions to perform adoptions without violating the tenets of their faith. Now stuff like this is why I am convinced that my most important entry to date on this weblog was my warning that Bible – believing Christians should not allow their opposition to the sin of homosexuality become homophobia, which would open the door to all sorts of demons that would ultimately allow the Christian to be manipulated by the forces of anti – Christ through culture and politics. YES, homosexuality is a sin. But if you are going to receive STATE MONEY and provide STATE SERVICES, you have to abide by STATE RULES. Romney was merely aiding the Catholic Church in a power play and power grab against the state.”

    Oh my, healtheland, you’re bordering awfully close to using the word ‘tolerance’. Okay, they have to follow the law of the land, but what if Romney was able to change the law of the land in order to give Catholic programs immunity? You’re use of legality on an issue as important as this (how dare anyone put children under the care of people who want ages of consent eliminated…) is very startling to me…

  3. Nancy Walker said

    I think that Catholics believe in the Real God. Jesus who died on the Cross and Rose from the dead. They state the Apostolic Creed. The Blood of Christ atonement. And the saints are communion of saints which are the great cloud of witnesses that are alive in heaven. Also the martyers blood in anyone who dies in Christ. I also think the Lord is going to Shake the Very Foundations. Catholics are going to wake up. Conversion is from the heart. The pope has stated that there is a real hell. He has stated that there is a real antichrist. He also has told nations that homosexuality is a sin. Abortion is a sin, Human Cloning is wrong. He told Brazil not to go the way of a communist nation.,
    Not all catholics think like your article. I think you should quote the spiri-filled catholics. Charismatic Catholics. The remnant group within.,

  4. Nancy Walker said

    Catholic church is liturgical.

  5. Nancy Walker: Why do Catholics pray to Mary and the saints when the Bible says not to do either? Jesus Christ specifically forbad worshiping the mother of His Earthly incarnation (not His actual mother, for Christ is God eternal) in Luke 11:22.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: