Some idiots say having a litmus test for political candidates is wrong. Would these same idiots be okay with electing a mass murderer, a serial rapist, or a dead man? (The last may actually perform better in office than any of our recent candidates.) It's common sense to expect candidates to meet at least a reasonable minimum, espousing a platform that demonstrates potential competence for the office.

One day, I have to face the Judge and give account for my actions, including my voting record. I want to face Him with a clear conscience, so I'm not going to throw my vote away on a candidate who is anathema to His ways. I won't support an ungodly candidate who is unfit to be in office. To this end, this is the nonnegotiable, bare minimum of a platform I demand from any candidate desiring my vote:

1. He must submit to and demand the rule of law (not merely the color of law), including a Textually Originalist interpretation of the Constitution beholden to Natural Law.
2. He must be uncompromisingly opposed to abortion and euthanasia.
3. He must support the right to bear arms without restriction (technically, this is derived from his submission to the Constitution).
4. He must support parental rights without restriction (this also implies homeschooling without regulation).
5. He must support unqualified property rights (e.g., no zoning, no codes, no imminent domain and condemnation and confiscation, etc.).
6. He must subscribe to the Austrian school of economics (laissez-faire).
7. He must be opposed to meta-crimes (so-called crimes where nobody else's rights have yet been violated; e.g., DUI), thought crimes, and any hint of a police state.
8. He must support a noninterventionist foreign policy.
9. He must support the right of secession.
10. He must be a sold-out believer, submitting to Biblical Law (trying his best, anyway), including acceptance of Scriptural inerrancy and all that this implies. (All the other criteria essentially derive from this one.)

Any scarcity of acceptable candidates is a reflection of our corrupt culture and not of my demands. If a viable candidate cannot be found, a write-in of someone who does qualify is the best ethical choice available.