Pastor Jeffress - Misery of False Faith Traditions

Robert Jeffress - Rick Perry's Jeremiah Wright?

A wave of bigotry and hypocrisy has been launched by Pastor Jeffress during the recent Values Voter Summit in Washington. You can get background at Reuters, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, USA Today or at The Christian Science Monitor (who are asking if this is Rick Perry's Jeremiah Wright moment, with evangelical leader Robert Jeffress as Jeremiah Wright). 

For me, it is not Pastor Jeffress' definition of "cult", but it's his self righteousness and smug mannerisms during the delivery that makes my skin crawl. In Pastor Jeffress' case, he used the word "cult" pejoratively in the political arena and that is what makes him sound like a petty man. I use his own statement about Mormonism to look at the Southern Baptist Convention and then also the Baptist movement; and then I delve into the definition of "christian" and contrast that definition between Baptists and Mormons. I conclude with an interesting Google search Venn Diagram that includes Baptists, Christians and Mormons.

Jeffress statement about Mormons

Before we begin, let me state that the Southern Baptist Convention, in their world view, label a variety of religions as cults - to put it bluntly, they, by definition, describe the following groups as cults (these are basically religious groups that do not conform to their world view and coincidentally either actively proselytize or have famous people that might draw adherents from the SBC). It should be noted that the SBC calls these groups "strange and dangerous religious movements". The list is small and is taken from an SBC publication titled Cults/Sect Overview - Belief Bulletin (guess who is number one on that list):

• The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) click here
• Jehovah's Witnesses click here
• United Pentecostal Church click here
• Unitarian Universalist Association click here
• Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (RLDS)/Community of Christ click here
• Christian Science click here
• Unity School of Christianity click here

So you can understand that when Pastor Jeffress speaks of cults, he is speaking from his religious world view and its definition of who is in and who is out. With that said, the term is a slur and pejorative and is therefore not appropriate on the political stage.

Pastor Jeffress said the following to Fox News:

"Mormonism was invented 1800 years after Jesus Christ and the founding of Christianity, and it has its own founder, Joseph Smith, its own set of doctrines and its own book, the Book of Mormon. And that, by definition, is a theological cult, that's all I'm saying."

For those of you that do not know, Pastor Jeffress is part of the Southern Baptist Convention. The SBC was created in May of 1845 when they left the northern baptists over the issue of slavery. Interestingly enough, this is just 15 years after Joseph Smith started The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (also known as the Mormons). 

The Baptist movement itself was invented in the 16th Century in England by a man named John Smyth. In 1609, John Smyth began the first English baptist church.

Let me now turn Jeffress' paragraph above toward his own religion, specifically the SBC, and let's see how it turns out:

"[The Southern Baptist Convention] was invented 1800 years after Jesus Christ and the founding of Christianity, and it has its own founder, [Basil Manly, Sr.], its own set of doctrines and its own book, [the Baptist Faith and Message]. And that, by definition, is a theological cult, that's all I'm saying."

Basil Manly, Sr. is the man that argued for slavery in 1844 in the southern baptist tradition. I will note that in 2005 the SBC renounced it's former positions on slavery.

Now, let's try that same paragraph looking at Baptists in general:

"[The Baptist movement] was invented [1600] years after Jesus Christ and the founding of Christianity, and it has its own founder, [John Smyth], its own set of doctrines and its own book, [the Baptist Faith and Message]. And that, by definition, is a theological cult, that's all I'm saying."

Both paragraphs seem to indicate the ridiculous nature of Robert Jeffress' statement about Mormons, as the paragraph can easily be applied to the history of his own religious world view. Interesting, isn't it, that Baptists were started by a John Smyth and Mormons by a Joseph Smith.

Contrasting the definition of Christian between Baptists and Mormons

When it comes down to it, evangelical Christians, like Robert Jeffress, feel they have a copyright on the word Christian. They have worked hard to narrowly define the word. In fact, one blogger likens it to a family and that Baptists have the Christian "DNA-Doctrine" to decide who can and cannot apply the word Christian to themselves.

For this contrast, I begin with the definition of Christian in the Merriam Webster dictionary:

Christian: one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ

Clearly the accepted definition of christian as one who professes to believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ is a wide and expansive definition. It also happens to be the definition used by Mormons. Let's use a Venn Diagram to illustrate the difference between the definition as used by Pastor Jeffress and Mormons.

"Christian" to a Mormon

I use the Venn Diagram below with one circle representing Mormons and the other representing Robert Jeffress' church. It should be noted that Mormons use the Bible in their teachings and adhere to its principles and most especially the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament. Because the term Christian is used in the Bible and Mormons use the modern definition of christian as anyone that professes to believe in the teachings of Jesus, Mormons would place the term "christian" in the Both section of the Venn Diagram below. Thus the Mormon definition is inclusive and shares the term with Paster Jeffress and his church.

"Christian" to Robert Jeffress

Despite the fact that Mormons use the Bible and a widely acknowledged definition of Christian exists, Robert Jeffress has chosen to use a definition of the word Christian that limits inclusion to his group alone. His group has spent significant time on a list of criteria that exclude others from using the word Christian. To illustrate, if Mormon's are the left circle and Robert Jeffress is the right circle, then Jeffress would put the word Christian in the "or" part of his circle. So we can easily see why he looks so out of touch with the dictionary definition of Christian and bristles when Mormons call themselves christian.

Concluding thoughts: It is my estimation, that Pastor Jeffress' (who in the Southern Baptist Convention rules maintains a lot of autonomy for his congregation) own religion can be identified as a cult, as the SBC came about in 1845 and the Baptists in 1609 from John Smyth; founded by a man. Their use of the Baptist Faith and Message solidifies their differences with Methodists, Catholics and Mormons and can be viewed as their "other book" (although it should be noted that because they don't believe in modern prophetic revelation from God, the order of the bullet points hold no "revealed word of God" status like the Bible). Further, the differences in the definitions of the word Christian demonstrate that Mormons use a more inclusive definition than Pastor Jeffress which angers him. And finally, it is my estimation that Pastor Jeffress has achieved the status of a social cult as described at the Coffee Talk by Christian author Rick Walston of the Columbia Evangelical Seminary in 2001. Pastor Jeffries purposefully used a pejorative term to describe Mormonism in an effort to improve the chances of Rick Perry in the Presidential election of 2012. His actions demonstrate a narrow-mindedness and reveal a bigoted disposition. His actions were inappropriate.

Mormons - Christians - Baptists Venn Diagram

The following Venn Diagram was created by googling "Why are [enter the group] so..." and having Google recommend the top searches. Hat tip to these bloggers for this information.

Definition of Bigot per Merriam Webster Dictionary:

a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

The Power of the Presidential Polls and the 2012 Election

Polls can be a little crazy - or maybe it's just the polled individuals that are crazy?

I can't help but feel a bit wary when a poll shows Sarah Palin leading the GOP contenders on Foreign Policy? Wow, how is that possible? I just find it difficult to imagine Ms. Palin talking with world leaders on issues - like Egypt or Libya.

Read about it at Gallup here.

Romney Has Earned His Spurs - Likely 2012 Presidential Candidate

Interesting happenings at CPAC where Romney came in miles ahead of other potential candidates. Palin skipped out again and Huckabee came humbly low in the results. In Detroit's Free Press, they titled an article, "Time might be right for Romney Presidential Run: Former Michigander maintains presense with book, frequent events", they said:

Many establishment conservatives who once viewed Romney with suspicion
because of his roots in liberal Massachusetts and his past support of abortion
and gay rights have been won over, says Tony Fabrizio, a GOP pollster who ran
the straw poll.
Romney, the son of former Michigan Gov. George W. Romney, is
a native Michigander.
“They view him as one of the party’s elder statesmen,”
Fabrizio says. “They see him as more thoughtful and measured than before, with
nothing to prove. He’s earned his spurs.”

It is nice to remember that Romney is a native Michigander who did a stint in liberal Massachusetts. To me, I like the idea that Romney knows how to work with Democrats - perhaps he will get more done for the American people than Barak Obama who appears unfamilar with the Art of Negotiation.

Medical Debt and how to blame your Healthcare System!

Lisabug, thank you for the blog post at The Frampton Family: Intermountain Healthcare & Medical Debt, while I don’t agree with you that Intermountain Healthcare is to blame for your medical debt (it appears your genetic makeup and lifestyle would have drawn down massive medical debt no matter where you lived – no fault of yours, that’s just the way it is) I do agree there are some things you can do.

I am interested by your case and would be interested in your answers to the following questions as I try to make sense of the situation:

1. Can you give us a ballpark of how much medical debt you have? Perhaps a range: less than $5,000, between $5,000 and $15,000 or greater than $15,000?
2. Also, as a family of four if your income is less than 200% of the Federal Poverty level you might be able to use the Prescription Drug Assistance programs made available by the Pharmaceutical companies. You can probably get free drugs or greatly discounted drugs – check it out at the Partnership for Prescription Assistance
3. I would be interested to understand your insurance situation. Were you on an employer provided plan; was it a small or large employer? You mention the deductible was too much, please let me know about how large the deductible was? Also, if you are comfortable, let me know who your insurance company was and what plan it was? That way I can look over the benefits and get a better idea of what they were trying to do?
4. Finally, I know culturally Bankruptcy carries a variety of connotations. From your article you appear to look down on Bankruptcy? Please describe your thoughts on the purpose of bankruptcy and when/if people should apply for it? It appears you are from Utah, so you might want to check out the Utah Courts site for legal assistance here. Chapter 7 bankruptcy costs around $300.00.

Ok, that does it! I am creating a unique survey to gather responses. Please follow the link below to express your thoughts about Medical Debt:

Click here to take a Medical Debt survey

Once I have all the responses, I will post the results.

My personal conclusion before the survey results:

In short, I think that no matter where Lisabug had chosen to live, she would have experienced extremely high medical debt. It is not specifically Intermountain Healthcare, it has more to do with Lisabug's genetics, behavioral choices, and her physical and social environment. There is one thing though that Lisabug ignores - namely, that her medical debt would be higher if she lived in any other state in the nation. In other words, the charges she incurred in Utah are lower than the charges she would have incurred anywhere else in the nation. There can be no doubt that Intermountain Healthcare is one of the principle reasons Utah's health spending per capita is the lowest in the nation.

Health Spending Per Capita Comparision From Highest to Lowest
Source: Statehealthfacts.org created by the Kaiser Family Foundation (2004)

District of Columbia
$8,295
Massachusetts
$6,683
Maine
$6,540
New York
$6,535
Alaska
$6,450
Connecticut
$6,344
Delaware
$6,306
Rhode Island
$6,193
Vermont
$6,069
West Virginia
$5,954
Pennsylvania
$5,933
North Dakota
$5,808
New Jersey
$5,807
Minnesota
$5,795
Ohio
$5,725
Wisconsin
$5,670
Nebraska
$5,599
Maryland
$5,590
Florida
$5,483
Kentucky
$5,473
Tennessee
$5,464
Missouri
$5,444
New Hampshire
$5,432
Kansas
$5,382
Iowa
$5,380
South Dakota
$5,327
Indiana
$5,295
Illinois
$5,293
Wyoming
$5,265
North Carolina
$5,191
Alabama
$5,135
South Carolina
$5,114
Washington
$5,092
Montana
$5,080
Mississippi
$5,059
Michigan
$5,058
Louisiana
$5,040
Hawaii
$4,941
Oklahoma
$4,917
Oregon
$4,880
Arkansas
$4,863
Virginia
$4,822
Colorado
$4,717
California
$4,638
Texas
$4,601
Georgia
$4,600
Nevada
$4,569
New Mexico
$4,471
Idaho
$4,444
Arizona
$4,103
Utah
$3,972

What is given from one, must be taken from another

"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."

Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931-2005

Hello economists - Mitt Romney already called this crisis

I really couldn't help but laugh at this article title that I read on MSNBC:

Economists point to rising debt as next crisis

The AP makes it sound like this is some brand new crisis rearing its ugly head on the horizon. I find it interesting that this issue was addressed by Mitt Romney during his presidential run in 2008. And I am not the only one that noticed how the top issues today are ones that Mitt Romney could address:

• Hitting budget,s
• Decreasing debt,
• Aligning healthcare incentives to focus on preventive care,
  
• Turning the nation around economically.

The Wall Street Journal has an article titled Romney Emerges as Top Issues Play to His Strengths. I thought this part of the article was most interesting.

And beyond the economy, what are the other big items on the agenda? Well, one is the auto industry, which happens to play nicely to the Romney background as a Michigander and son of an auto-company executive. The other is health care, which tees up Mr. Romney to talk about the health overhaul he led in Massachusetts while that state's governor. All this leads, inevitably enough, to talk of Mr. Romney already emerging as a leading contender for the party's next presidential nomination. Of course, talking about the 2012 presidential race at the midpoint of 2009 is silliness on stilts. Mr. Romney says he doesn't know whether he will run, which is the only sensible thing to say.

I think Mitt Romney could address these issues. Confidence in Romney in 2012.

What is an American? And what do they look like?

In this time of bitter disputes about politics. Sometimes it is nice to step back and remember who we are - AMERICANS. Hat tip to the video makers of this one.



Who is an American? People from all over the world.

Neal Boortz: The FairTax Book - what a baby

I've been reading up on the FairTax. Mr. Neal Boortz, syndicated talk show host, wrote a book with Congressman John Linder called The FairTax Book: Saying Goodbye to the Income Tax and the IRS. I absolutely do not support the idea of the "FairTax" based on his book.

The kicker for me shows up on page 78.

Neal Boortz has just finished explaining on page 77 how "The federal government will pay the states one quarter of 1 percent" for collecting the "FairTax"; in addition, "the same amount will also be paid to the business that collects the tax". Basically, the states and businesses turn the collection of the "FairTax" into a venture that adds to the bottom line. What are the ethical implications? The incentives of collecting taxes have changed wildly under the FairTax.

Further on page 77, Neal points out that it is really all just conjecture that prices will go down, like for your doctors visits. I have my doubts about the FairTax making any prices go down (they might be able to do it with legislation, but most companies will not drop 26%). The FairTax will result in higher prices overall.

Then on page 78, Neal calls for the Federal Government "to pay the consumption tax along with everyone else". He goes on to say, "Remember, the FairTax is neutral. It plays no favorites. We've had enough of 'playing tax favorites' game with the present system..."

And this is what I find so crazy about his perspective. Neal seems to have forgotten that although the FairTax doesn't "play favorites", politicians do. The incentives for spending start to include paying for states to regulate and collect the tax, and paying companies to collect the tax as well. I can see the quarter of one percent slowly ticking up over time as states and businesses refuse to collect the tax because it costs them more money than they receive. I believe the FairTax places more pressure on politicians to create pork barrel spending, not only do they get money invested, but the companies that lobby them get a piece of the pie as does the state government.

In conclusion, the FairTax's big claim is that it is meant to be revenue neutral. Let's take a look at the idea "that the federal government will send every family in America a prebate". Most recently the Federal Government alerted some 130,000,000 tax payers to expect a check from the Federal Government. And what did this one time mailing cost the US taxpayer?

$42 million dollars

Now let's times that by twelve months, that gives us $502 million dollars, nearly a half billion dollars, for the yearly mailing of prebates. Of course, we times this by the FairTax and we add an additional $151.2 million for an amazing total of $655.2 million dollars just to get the prebates into the American taxpayers' hands. (I ignore death payments that would need to be stopped, also fraud, and the terrific cost of returned mail.) The FairTax is not revenue neutral.

The FairTax may sound like a good idea, but somebody needs to, as Mr. Thomas Sowell suggests in Applied Economics, "Look beyond stage one", the FairTax doesn't look as happy go lucky as Mr. Boortz childishly puts it in his book.

Ron Paul Bids Presidential - Loses His Job Back Home?

Will Ron Paul lose his Senate seat? I was surprised to read this article on ABC News about Ron Paul. The article was titled: Paul's Revolution: National Buzz, Lost Job?

I hadn't ever considered the consequences of running a national campaign. Here are three paragraphs that sum it up.

On the campaign trail for president, however, [the candidates] can
raise their profile from local pol to national voice. They can raise millions,
draw crowds, rally the base, needle the front-runners, and maybe, just maybe,
start a movement or at least force a dialogue.

But beware members of Congress: Stepping onto the national stage can have
serious consequences on the soapbox back home.

"I do think the presidential race has exposed some of his values and
principles that are not in line with his district, and that exposure has done
him harm at home," Republican primary challenger Chris Peden said of Paul.

Latest Presidential Poll Released...

The poll results are in: Mitt Romney 45%, Mike Huckabee 10%, and John McCain 6%.

Barak Obama took in 38%, while John Edwards was close with 36%.

These results were gathered from 300 dentists during the Chicago Dental Society's 143rd Midwinter Meeting. The results indicate Mitt Romney has the best smile of all of the Presidential candidates.

The poll also found that childbirth really was tougher than pulling teeth, and raising teenagers came in a close second.

Read the entire story at United Press International, Poll: Dentists like Romney's smile best

Barak Obama vs. Hillary Clinton Presidential Debates

Presidential Debate CNN held on February 21, 2008 in Austin, Texas
These are my notes from the debate. I missed the first half and these are my impressions.

Obama keeps saying the phrase, "That's a debate I want to have." Come on man, you're in a debate right now, have it out!

Obama has said over and over that he wants to "Sit down with our enemies" and talk it out. But, looks like he is flip-flopping tonight. He just gave a one minute explanation that if you covered your TV screen would have sounded like a Republican Presidential candidate talking about his readiness to be the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. Too bad Obama never served in the military.

Obama just went off on Pakistan. Saying he would get in there and take care of business. What's he talking about? Getting the soldiers out of Iraq so he can send them to Pakistan? There goes his, I’ll talk it out with everyone stance.

Obama had 91 million in earmarks for Illinois. Illinois is 4% of the US population. I am not sure what the CNN moderators were talking about, but Obama told where those earmarks went back in June of 2007.

Clinton had 342 million in earmarks for New York. New York has 6.4% of the US population. Perhaps one is very effective or corrupt?

Clinton just said McCain supported the Bush tax cuts. Hilarious because most Republicans don’t think he does.

Question about leadership demonstrated in a time of crisis?
Obama – my life is one big crisis that I have been dealing with since I was a baby. The trajectory of my life tells me I’m headed right. Sorry about the drugs, I’m good at organizing people; I’ll give a government worthy of the decency of people.

Clinton – Everybody knows I’ve faced some crisis in life (she got a good laugh). She talked about the opening of the Intrepid Center and seeing the soldiers. Some walked in, some came in without limbs, and some came in on gurneys. (I was actually touched by her comments. I was drawn in and my respect for her grew a little bit. Great response – oh wow, she actually drew Obama and caused him to shake her hand. And now a standing ovation!!! Amazing.)

Concluding thoughts: Most of the questions went to Clinton first; this allowed Obama to position himself against her answers and allowed him to think about a response.

I think Clinton knocked this one out of the park. I am stunned.

Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama: Yeah, John Edwards had it right

The Wall Street Journal report an article titled "Democrats' Attacks on Business Heat Up". It was written by Laura Meckler and Kris Maher in the Weekend Edition.

"The candidates have made broad attacks on corporate wealth and tax cuts they say tilt toward the rich, along with more specific attacks against health insurers and oil companies, among other industries. On Friday, Mrs. Clinton began airing a TV spot in Wisconsin in which she says, "The oil companies, the drug companies, have had seven years of a president who stands up for them.... It's time we had a president who stands up for all of you."

"Both candidates increasingly sound like former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards as they pursue his endorsement and the voters -- particularly union members -- who were drawn to the populist candidate before he dropped out last month. Illinois Sen. Obama got a boost toward that goal Friday with the backing of the Service Employees International Union, one of the most politically powerful labor organizations.

The democrats have done something that I had hoped not to see. They are attacking business with a vengeance. If we can just get rid of business we can solve all of our woes.

Clinton said, “We’re going to end every single tax break that still exists in the federal tax code that gives one penny of your money to anybody who exports a job. Those days are gone.” While Barak Obama has been denouncing NAFTA “for shipping jobs overseas and forcing ‘parents to compete with their teenagers to work for minimum wage at Wal-Mart. That’s why we need a president who will listen to Main Street, not just Wall Street.”

I don’t know what kind of town all of you live on, but my Main Street has all sorts of businesses along it? Any way it appears a major beef between the two candidates is NAFTA (I like to the trouble is more because the US has the second highest tax burden on business which makes us an unfavorable place to locate.)

Earlier I talked about who owes who favors on DAY 1 in the White House – looks like the tables have turned a little against Obama, who now owes the most favors to Unions.

Money raised by Unions for Democrats:
Obama $3.671 million
Clinton $3.418 million


On a different note, Peggy Noonan declares there has been some internal conflict in the Clinton campaign: campaign guru Mark Penn yelled, "Your ad doesn't work!" to ad maker Mandy Grunwald, who shouted back, "Oh, it's always the ad, never the message." Ouch!

Where is Rudy Giuliani now? and other New York Times News

I was reading yesterday's New York Times and came across some interesting articles:

From Canditate to Corporate Lawyer: Rudy Giuliani is no longer a candidate for the presidency, having dropped out two weeks ago. But at least he has a law firm bearing his name to return to.
That would be Bracewell & Giuliani. Giuliani made $1.2 million from the company, that was $1 million base salary and 7.5% of the profits of the New York office. (Wow, that's kind of a nice salary.)

I thought this one was kind of funny since Huckabee was zinging Romney on the Caymans.

Huckabee Offshore's His Speeches: The reporters following Mr. Huckabee asked him if this might present a conflict for him, to be picking up some cash in a place that he criticizes.“OK, first of all let’s get something straight: I’m not gonna be taking money and parking it in the Cayman Islands,” ABC News reported, describing his tone as “a little combative.” “I’m gonna get enough money to come back and pay about 40 percent in taxes on what I earned. There’s a big difference.”Mr. Huckabee said he has to give speeches to earn money and “make sure I can make my mortgage payments, just like everybody else has to do.”He also noted: “I’m the only person who doesn’t get paid by the taxpayers to campaign. Senator Obama, Senator Clinton, Senator McCain, they campaign every day and I’m paying for their campaigns. I’m paying because I’m a taxpayer, and I have to pay for their Senate salaries even if they are not on duty.” (Compared to Giuliani's salary Huckabee's got to bring in dough some how.)

This next article is titled Fresh Start Conservatism by David Brooks and encourages Republicans to gather around the "spirit of reforms". A brief highlight is:
1. Policies that foster two-parent families.
2. Policies for early-childhood education.
3. Policies to loosen the grip of the teachers' unions.
4. Encourage national service for 20 somethings and prepare and emotionally engage future college students.
5. Policies encouraging worker security like portable health insurance and retraining accounts.

Republicans believe positive government can help prepare people for the rigors of competition, so they can have an open field and fair chance.

The article in its entirety is below.

Fresh Start Conservatism
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: February 15, 2008

In the 19th century, industrialization swept the world. Many European nations expanded their welfare states but kept their education systems exclusive. The U.S. tried the opposite approach. American leaders expanded education and created the highest quality work force on the planet.

That quality work force was the single biggest reason the U.S. emerged as the economic superpower of the 20th century. Generation after generation, American workers were better educated, more industrious and more innovative than the ones that came before.

That progress stopped about 30 years ago. The percentage of young Americans completing college has been stagnant for a generation. As well-educated boomers retire over the next decades, the quality of the American work force is likely to decline. Mitt Romney captured the consequences in his withdrawal statement: “I am convinced that unless America changes course, we will become the France of the 21st century — still a great nation, but no longer the leader of the world.”

Americans feel the slippage every day.

If I were advising the Republican nominee, this is one of the places I’d ask him to plant his flag. I’d ask him to call for a new human capital revolution, so that the U.S. could recapture the spirit of reforms like the Morrill Act of the 19th century, the high school movement of the early 20th century and the G.I. Bill after World War II.

Doing that would mean taking on the populists of the left and right, the ones who imagine the problem is globalization and unfair trade when in fact the real problem is that the talents of American workers are not keeping up with technological change.

Doing that would also mean stealing ideas from both the left and right. Liberals have spent more time thinking about human capital than conservatives, who have tended to imagine that if you build a free market, a quality labor force would magically appear.

Doing that would also mean transcending economic policy categories. If there is one thing we have learned over the bitter experience of the past 30 years, it is that per-pupil expenditures and days in the classroom are not sufficient to produce superb information-economy workers. They emerge from intact families, quality neighborhoods and healthy moral cultures.
Finally, doing that would mean laying down lifelong policies. Human capital development is like nutrition — you have to do it every day.

The first group of policies would foster two-parent families. If all American families looked like the intact middle-class ones, we wouldn’t have nationally low education outcomes. Married men earn 10 percent to 40 percent more than single men with similar skills, and their children are much more likely to graduate from high school. But among the lower-middle class, there is a poisonous spiral of economic stress and cultural decay.

A new working class tax credit applied against the payroll tax would reduce some of the stress. So would a larger child tax credit and increases in the Earned Income Tax Credit. The federal budget should bestow less on seniors and more on young families.

The second group of policies would involve early-childhood education. There could be nurse-home visits for children in chaotic homes so that they have some authority in their lives. Preschool should be radically expanded and accountability programs put in place.

Third, the next president has to loosen the grip of the teachers’ unions. Certification rules have to be radically reformed to attract qualified college graduates. Merit pay has to become the norm. Reforming superintendents need the freedom to copy the models — like KIPP Academies — that actually work.

Fourth, Democrats like to talk about college affordability, but that’s the least important explanation for why so many students don’t complete college. The real reasons are that students are academically unprepared and emotionally disengaged. National service should be a rite of passage for 20-somethings, and these volunteers could mentor students through high school and college years.

Fifth, portable health insurance and retraining accounts would give adult workers security. Income taxes are not going to be coming down, but they need to stay where they are. As Edward Prescott has shown, higher taxes mean less work, and less work means less worker development.

The agenda could go on, but the point is this: Democrats believe in fine-tuning the economy.
They believe in intervening in a thousand little ways to address problems. Republicans believe these thousands of little Band-Aids hinder movement and distort productivity. But Republicans do believe, or at least should, that positive government can help prepare people for the rigors of competition, so they can have an open field and fair chance.

That’s the conservatism of the fresh start.

Sharing Some Similarities: Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, and John McCain

I am still debating what I will do for the rest of this political season. It’s been nice to take a break from the constant blogging.

However, I wanted to comment on some of the similarities between Clinton, Obama, and McCain. The Wall Street Journal from February 14, 2008 ran an article titled “Change Seen on Key Issues as Presidential Candidates Agree”. The article listed the common ground between the Democrats and McCain – for conservatives, some of these are issues for which you should prep your form letters.

Common Ground – despite their many differences, John McCain and the two Democrats share similar views on several key issues

• For global treaty on climate change


• For cap-and-trade system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions


• For embryonic stem-cell research


• For giving illegal immigrants straightforward path to citizenship


• For closing Guantanamo Bay prison


• Against waterboarding (I heard a funny comment on NPR today, a lady was discussing the GOP and wondered if McCain had alienated the “pro-waterboarding voting block of the Republican party”)


• Against elimination of the estate tax


• For renewed focus on war in Afghanistan


• For expanded veterans’ health benefits

Barak Obama also released his economic plan at a cost of $140 billion per year; to be funded by ending the war in Iraq, closing corporate tax loopholes and allowing many of President Bush’s signature tax cuts expire in 2010. The WSJ said, “Mr. Obama’s plan revealed an economic worldview in which government must right the wrongs created by a system in which wealth begets access to power, and power, in turn, bestows more riches on the wealthy.”

Obama at the Top, so what?

I’ve always struggled with the idea that government’s purpose is to redistribute wealth. The nation would be a better place in my opinion if neighbors would turn off WOW and take a little kindness over to their neighbor. Nothing against WOW, but as a population we sure are stuck inside our houses.

Mitt Romney campaign sends out letter endorsing John McCain

Mitt Romney invites his supports to gather around John McCain for the sake of the GOP.

Dear ,

Thank you for your strong support and dedication to Governor Romney and the campaign. We had such great success in so many states because of all your hard work and the efforts of your team of volunteers. As you may have heard, yesterday Governor Romney endorsed Senator John McCain for President of the United States. The Governor and his family thought long and hard about this decision and feel that it is best for the Republican Party to bring the country together and unit behind one candidate. We need to provide our party with the best opportunity to defeat the Democrats in November.

Below are Governor Romney’s remarks from his press conference with Senator John McCain:

Thank you all very much. And thank you all for joining us on such
short notice.

This isn’t my first joint appearance with Senator John McCain, but it
promises to be one of our more pleasant exchanges.

I am honored today to give my full support to Senator McCain’s candidacy
for President of the United States. Today I am asking my delegates to vote for
Senator McCain.

As you all saw over the past year, things can get rough in a political
campaign. And in the thick of the fight it’s easy to lose sight of your
opponent’s finer qualities. But in the case of Senator John McCain, I
could never quite do that. Even when the contest was close and our
disagreements were debated, the caliber of the man was apparent.

This is a man capable of leading our country at a dangerous hour.
Senator McCain understands the war we are in – the necessity of victory and the
consequences of surrender. For him, national security isn’t just another
item on the agenda. It is the abiding concern and responsibility of our
nation.

This is a man who tied his political fortunes to the fortunes of his
country in a time of war. Such courage is not always rewarded in politics,
but it was this time – and that is a credit to both the man and to the party he
will lead in the election of 2008.

This is a man who has served and suffered for his country. John
McCain’s greatest test was long ago. But the loyalty, and love of country,
and strength of heart that saw him through are still the qualities that define
him. With their rhetoric, our Democratic opponents are very skilled at
striking heroic poses. But with our Republican nominee, we’re going to
offer America the real thing.

I am pleased to introduce a real America hero, the next president of the
United States, Senator John McCain.

It is time for our party to come together by standing behind Senator John McCain for President in order to keep our country prosperous and strong. Thank you once again for your support of our campaign.

When Bowing Out of the Presidential Race is the Responsible Thing

From the Blogometer:

Conservative bloggers were pleased that Mitt Romney endorsed his former rival McCain:

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "Romney casts himself in a good light with this move, proving that his personal feelings will not stand in the way of making the decision that's in both his and the nation's interest."

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "If you believe Senators Obama and Clinton, they fundamentally fail to understand the consequences of withdrawal in Iraq or the contours of the menace in Iran. Neither appears to grasp the jihadist threat. Senator McCain does. Because Mitt Romney cares deeply about the safety and security of the country, he was certain to endorse Senator McCain. That he did so quickly is a testament to the starkness of the choice facing America, McCain's complete commitment to victory, and Romney's understanding of the stakes."

Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "On one level, Romney is making good on his pledge to unite the GOP and prevent the Democrats from taking the White House in perilous times. However, he is also amplifying the contrast between himself (high-minded GOP loyalist) with the man who may be his competition in 2012 or 2016, Mike Huckabee."

Mitt Romney Following in the Footsteps of Ronald Reagan

I was asked, by a friend from Tennessee, if I thought Mitt Romney would attempt to become the Governor of Michigan. I thought it was a very good question, of course my response is just conjecture. However, this rumor of Romney running for Michigan Governor can be laid to rest quite quickly by referring to the Michigan Election Laws.

MICHIGAN ELECTION LAW (EXCERPT)
Act 116 of 1954
168.51 Governor or lieutenant governor; eligibility; violation of §38.412a.

Sec. 51.

A person shall not be eligible to the office of governor or lieutenant governor unless the person has attained the age of 30 years and has been a registered and qualified elector in this state for 4 years next preceding his or her election, as provided in section 22 of article 5 of the state constitution of 1963. A person who has been convicted of a violation of section 12a(1) of Act No. 370 of the Public Acts of 1941, being section 38.412a of the Michigan Compiled Laws, shall not be eligible to the office of governor or lieutenant governor for a period of 20 years after the conviction.

Michigan, like most states, has requirements for governors. In this case, they must be at least 30 years old and have been a registered and qualified elector (that means attained residence in the state which can take a year or two) for four years before they run for office.

In the case of Mitt Romney, the Presidential race of 2012 would just arrive when Romney would be able to run for governor of Michigan. I do not see this as a smart move for Mitt Romney.

However, I think we are going to see a lot of Mitt Romney nationally over the next four years. In the Washington Times is an interesting article titled, "Right Wants Romney as Standard-Bearer".

While John McCain was speaking to CPAC and getting the cold shoulder, Mitt Romney who had already addressed the group was now huddled with about 50 conservative leaders discussing how to preserve conservative principles "lowering taxes, limited government and free speech".

The article went on, "The purpose of the meeting was for him to announce his willingness to fight shoulder to shoulder with true conservatives from here on out," said political strategist Paul Erickson, who worked for Mr. Romney"s campaign. "He did just that."

The head of the American Conservative Union expressed surprise and enthusiasm for Mitt Romney leading out on conservative issues. Keene said, "If someone had suggested a year ago and a half ago that we would be welcoming Mitt Romney as a potential leader of the conservative movement, no one would have believed it, but over the last year and a half, he has convinced us he is one of us and walks with us."

I foresee a strong conservative place for Mitt Romney over the coming years.

Evangelicals and Mormons are not so different - Politically Speaking

Let me start by saying I already understand the definitional difference of the word "Christian" between Evangelicals and Mormons.

I want to point out the importance of Evangelical and Mormon cooperation when it comes to politics. During the last couple of months some important things about tolerance and cooperation have been brought to my attention. I now want to share my thoughts on this subject with you.

An instructor of mine always says, "We are more similar than we are disimilar." I believe him. When John F. Kennedy, a catholic, ran for President of the United States, he said,

"I believe in an America... where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all. For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew— or a Quaker or a Unitarian or a Baptist... Today I may be the victim, but tomorrow it may be you — until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril. Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end; where all men and all churches are treated as equal; where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice; where... Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood."

Unfortunately, America has not yet reached that ideal condition. Now that the Mormon has been driven from the Presidential race, the Evangelical will begin receiving negative pressure (in fact, it's already started). The Wall Street Journal Friday, February 8, 2008 published an article titled Mormons Dismayed By Harsh Spotlight. Having witnessed the misinformation propogated about Mormons, this article surprised me about the findings presented, not about Mormons, but about Evangelicals. While Evangelicals aren't as misunderstood as Mormons, for instance the reputable Reuters News Agency introduced Mitt Romney as a Presidential candidate by writing on the first page, "Devout Mormon and former bishop of the Massachusetts' temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Any knowledgeable person would know that Mormon's don't have bishops in charge of temples, they have temple presidents and Mitt Romney has never been one). Any way the study indicated that Americans with concerns about Evangelicals for President was just slightly below Mormons. An Evangelical President had 25% with some reservations and 20% who felt very uncomfortable, while the Mormon Presidential candidate had just 4% more with some reservations and only 1% more who felt very uncomfortable. Turns out politically speaking Evangelicals and Mormons have a lot in common.

Mitt Romney faced enormous misinformation and often negative pressure because of his religion. This antagonism has come from individuals, the media, and even other churches. On the blogosphere, I have visited many websites and seen the vitriol and hatred lambasting Mormons. A particularly nasty message board has been the MSNBC board under the question, "What do you think of Mitt Romney's candidacy?" The message board was allowed by MSNBC moderators to be used by five trolls that went by the names zadra, susala, Vandals Handle, IIF, and Ed in America. The data from the MSNBC message boards tell the story.First let's look at the number of posts. Romney's numbers look amazing. Absolutely the most of all the Presidential candidates. Second let's look at the number of views. Again only Hillary Clinton comes close to the number of views that Romney has recieved. Both of these indicators make things look good. But the third point reveals the rest of the story.






In this third graph we see the number of authors. Romney's message board comes in third, yet look at all of those posts. The reason is that the five trolls mentioned above copy and pasted, over and over, anti-Mormon articles that misinformed the public and had nothing to do with Mitt Romney as a candidate. There is ample evidence of this in other places as well.

Now, I again refer back to John F. Kennedy's speech, "Today I may be the victim, but tomorrow it may be you...". Freedom of religion is as important today as it was when this country was founded. It will take both Evangelicals and Mormons united in common political purpose to accomplish and guarantee for all faiths the peace and priviledge to worship Almighty God as they see fit. Now that the Mormon has been driven from the Presidential race, the main stream media and others will turn their focus on the Evangelical candidate. America is great because of diversity of thought which leads to the innovation necessary to conquer the problems that we, The People, must face.

United we stand, divided we fall.


Suggested readings:
John F. Kennedy Speech - you can both read the transcript or watch him speak
Article VI blog - Focuses on Article VI of the United States Constitution

The Main Stream Media and the Marketing Destruction of Mitt Romney

The main stream media has done a great job hampering, hindering, and slyly biasing the Presidential race in 2008. I offer the following evidence as my observations of media bias against Mitt Romney.

1. Mitt Romney's political strategy was leaked early to the media. Including his thoughts on how he wanted to win the race. The strategy outlined the strengths and weaknesses of both his opponents and himself. This leak allowed the main stream media to have a prepared script months ahead of time for their articles, political punditry, and Romney shots prepared (Romney even noted in this strategy that he may be attacked as a flip-flopper - which the media exploited).
I almost never saw the news media discussing in depth the other candidates’ strategies. This included Romney's campaigning strategy, like which states he was focusing on, where he wanted a strong win and what he was doing. Why is this important? Because the media gave Huckabee, McCain, and other anti-Romney groups specific targets for their calling, mailings and whisper campaigns.

2. Polls were used as a way to get out the vote against Romney. Over and over in states that Romney looked close to winning, the media provided a lot of news coverage that he might be ahead. For instance, in Florida and again in California, polls and pundits made a huge deal that Romney was in the lead. This sly coverage by the media energized groups against Mitt Romney and in some cases lulled some of Romney's supporters from the polls because they thought he had enough votes.

3. The media kept everyone, except for Mitt Romney, within easy click-reach online. This morning (Super Tuesday) when I looked up CNN news, there on the front page with a huge title with the words John McCain picks up key Super Tuesday endorsement. Never mind that the news of this particular endorsement was three days old.

I scrolled down the page further and on the right were eight articles. Four of the articles were about McCain; two were for Huckabee and absolutely NOTHING to be found on Romney. This occurred over and over. Why is this? Straight and simple - it is MONEY! My belief is that the main stream media recognized Romney has a lot of money. They are basically positioning the media coverage to force Romney to spend money. From all the free news conference coverage for Huckabee since Iowa, to the many free articles and news coverage for his digs, dings, and jabs at Romney. The media coverage was not balanced giving many more stories to Huckabee and McCain.

4. The role of Jay Leno, Stephen Colbert, and David Letterman cannot be underestimated. Oh yeah, and don't forget Connan O'Brien (didn't he and Colbert make Huckabee?).

I am deeply disappointed with the major news media outlets. I feel they took away the choice of the American people by presenting the terrible side of Romney and allowing the other candidates to broadcast their attacks for free. I will end here as I might say some cruel things about some specific reporters at specific news outlets.

Mitt Romney says Goodbye to 2008 Presidential Bid

Dear ,

If you have not heard by now, I have decided to suspend my campaign for president. This was not an easy decision for me, and I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for your support from the beginning to the point where we are today. We’ve come such a long way, and our hard work together will leave an imprint on the course of history.

As I addressed the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) yesterday in Washington, D.C., I outlined what I know is the right course ahead for our nation – a course based on conservative principles such as individual responsibility, strong faith and values, economic strength with lower taxes and a national defense that will not retreat from the threat of evil extremism.

I disagree with Senator McCain on a number of issues, as you know. But I agree with him on doing whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq, on finding and executing Osama bin Laden, and on eliminating Al Qaeda and terror. If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding surrender to terror.

This is not an easy decision for me. I hate to lose. My family, my friends and, you, our supporters, have given a great deal to get me where I have a shot at becoming President. If this were only about me, I would go on. But I entered this race because I love America, and because I love America, I feel I must now stand aside, for our party and for our country.

You can be sure I will continue to stand for conservative principles. I will fight alongside you for all the things we believe in. And one of those things is that we cannot allow the next President of the United States to retreat in the face evil extremism.

It is the common task of each generation – and the burden of liberty – to preserve this country, expand its freedoms and renew its spirit so that its noble past is prologue to its glorious future.
Please stand proud today that you fought for a cause greater than yourself, and please continue to fight to preserve our ideals.

Thank you again so very much.
Mitt