I love Ron Paul, and I love what his supporters bring to the Republican Party, but neither the Paulites nor
anyone else will "become the tent."  Dr. Paul is missing the whole point of the Republican Party—and indeed, of Conservatism itself.

I listen to Paul’s words about legalizing marijuana, auditing the Fed, drastically cutting the Federal Government, and re-assessing our foreign policy, and I get excited.  I don’t agree 100%, but I think he and his supporters bring fantastic diversity to this big tent we share.  They’re awesome, and even if Romney wins the
presidency, I WON’T BE SATISFIED until Dr. Paul plays a big role in fixing this nation, and his supporters play a big role in developing our party platform.
 
But here’s the problem:  Too often, the Paul supporters want to REPLACE those of us who are sharing this tent with them.  If I don’t want all our troops pulled home immediately, I’m told I hate the Constitution.  If I don’t want all of the Patriot Act tossed immediately, I’m told I hate the Constitution.  If I’m fine with legalizing marijuana, but not meth and cocaine, I’m told I hate the Constitution.

Memo to Ron Paul and his supporters:  If you constantly tell people how stupid and unpatriotic they are, then maybe you shouldn’t throw fits when they’re not begging for your input.  Don’t you understand what it
means to be Conservatives?  We Conservatives believe in the individual, not collectivism, AND THAT MEANS WE BELIEVE EVERY INDIVIDUAL SHOULD BE HEARD AND  VALUED, NOT ATTACKED AND DEMEANED.

Oh, and please don’t say, “Well, you guys attack and demean us!”  That’s just embarrassing.  I have never seen any group on the Right stomp about and shout in faces like you do—regardless of  whether you’ve been provoked.  And as for those times you are attacked, I have never seen a group on the Right beg for such treatment like you.  You want better treatment?  Then try not exploding every time someone disagrees with you.  You want respect?  Then try being the peacemaker when someone else is unreasonable.  Quit whining about tolerance until you demonstrate some.
  
You know what’s the worst thing about Ron Paul saying his supporters will “become the tent”?  ARROGANCE.  He talks like he’s going to drive us out, not win us over.  Again, are these the words of someone who values individuals over the collective?  On the contrary, these sound like the words of someone hoping to TAKE OVER THE COLLECTIVE.  Ron Paul is a great Conservative—one of my favorites—but should I just accept it when he speaks in such non-conservative terms?

Not a chance.  Ron Paul needs to remember that ALL US INDIVIDUALS WHO VALUE INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM OVER COLLECTIVE CONTROL are “the tent.”  Not just his group.  Not just his peeps.  So enter freely my friends, and know  that neither Ron Paul nor any other single voice will block the entryway.  In
Conservatism, no one voice demands complete allegiance, or claims to be the
final authority on our nation’s founding documents.

IN THIS TENT, NO
ONE HAS THAT KIND OF POWER.

I have heard many Christians express concerns about voting for Mitt Romney because he is Mormon.  They certainly have this right, but I’d ask that they give me one chance to offer another view.

You see, I am a former Atheist, now a born again Evangelical Christian.  My degree is in the Ministry.  My favorite ministry is "Answers In Genesis" with Ken Ham.  I am not a Mormon.  But I offer the following points:

1.  When Mormons cast millions of votes to help elect Reagan, the '94 Congress, and the 2010 Congress, did we protest?  I doubt it.

2.  Now a Mormon wishes to do more than help us elect great people.  He wants to do something he does very well, which is LEAD.  So, would we tell this Mormon to do what Obama tells all Republicans to do, and
"get in the back seat" like a good little 3rd class citizen?  I hope not.

3.  In other words, do we trust Mormon citizens with the great responsibility of voting, but not governing?  Are they fine as long as they stay in the place we assign them?  That’s just not us.  

4.  Our current President went to a church that preached Liberation Theology, which is a blending of Marxist thought and Christian rhetoric.  His pastor and mentor mocked Jews while praising Muslim leaders—which was certainly within his rights.

So tell me, do we see hoards of Americans flocking to that belief system now that they have a President who supports it?  Of course not, because our President doesn't dictate our religious beliefs.

5.  Mitt Romney says he's running for Commander In Chief, not Minister In Chief.  He wants all religious beliefs—yours, mine, his, everyone else's—to be exercised in total freedom.  For instance, though he's not Catholic, Romney openly opposed President Obama's attempt to force Catholic organizations to offer health
options that violated their conscience.

In other words, Mitt Romney supports our religious freedom.  He and President Obama differ here.

6.  Finally, Mitt Romney pledged to support whomever won the GOP nomination, and one reason is that he feels we need a President who cherishes the religious rights of all Americans.  Would you consider making this pledge as well?  I hope so.

In conclusion, I certainly understand the concerns Evangelical Christians have over supporting someone who holds different views.  We Christians have been demonized from every corner over every issue, so we have every right to our suspicions and doubts.  But let’s keep in mind that in voting for a President, we are hiring an employee, not proclaiming a savior.
  
We already have one of those.  And unlike the current President, Mitt Romney will protect—not attack—our freedom to serve Jesus Christ without violating our conscience.  He has my thanks.

I do not support quota voting. Never have. Few things sound more bigoted than voting for candidates because they look like me or cater to my preferred demographic. It's inexcusable.

That said, America has a long history of quota voting. For 220 years, every US president was a white male. Every last one. Does anybody seriously believe the most qualified person to lead this nation for 220 years was always a white male? Always? I doubt it.

America waited too long in breaking that trend, and while I disagree with fighting old quota voting with new quota voting, I can hardly blame those who want anything but a white man today. It's just too soon, you know? And yet, here I am, proudly supporting Mitt Romney.

I feel neither guilt nor regret, but great sadness-sadness for the awful thing I must do. I must tell millions of long-suffering people how, after waiting centuries for this chance, they made a terrible decision. I must tell them how America is hurtling down a path to ruin; hastened by an election they hailed as historic. Worst of all, I must do this to those I deeply, deeply enjoy. I love these people, and now I must play the villain. I will speak, and many will hate me. It's inevitable.

Tell me, fellow white men, what if you had never seen a white man in office until now? And what if, having finally broken through, you saw Americans turning on this man, ready to resume the old ways? Might you
question their motives in voting against "your guy?" Might you suspect bigotry on their part? Might you defend "your guy" to the hilt-even overlooking his ethical shortcomings?

Maybe.  Maybe not.

But President Obama received 95% of the Black vote in 2008, with huge majorities among Hispanics and
young people as well. They all made history, while we stood against it-and we'll do so again.

Are we right?  Of course.  Mitt Romney can't help that he was born a white male, and he's eminently qualified to lead.  Besides, real unemployment is over 11%, and the rate for Black and Hispanic communities is . . . well, horrifying. Oh, and we've added nearly $6 trillion to our national debt in a microscopic four years. So, what is President Obama's response to his failures? He blames job creators and his predecessor. After having a supermajority Congress pass everything he wanted for two years, he still points fingers. Truly, he has failed all Americans, regardless of race. He must go. 

But Barack Obama isn't "their guy," and his creation isn't "their" fault. He's "ours". Folks, when we spend 220 years ignoring all the qualified people of color for a position, eventually, a very un-qualified person of color may be thrust upon us. We deserved this president; every ounce of him.

And here's the really bad news: the only way to uproot this disaster is to become the villains. We will be hated; not because of this year, but because of 220 years. They will fight to the last breath, and there will be no fairytale ending with joy in the kingdom. We don't deserve that. This is going to be ugly, and when I think of all the beautiful, precious people who will curse my name, I feel no anger or offense. Only sadness. 

My one hope is that, should we be successful in defeating this President, we will have learned a valuable
lesson. Never again must we accommodate one kind of quota voting while attacking another. I should hope we see many people of color commanding from the White House, and how about someone who isn't a man for once? 

Just a thought.