Sarah Palin's Schilling

Sarah Palin needs to be honest about her loyalties in the GOP presidential campaign.

Her pick is obviously not former Gov. Mitt Romney.

The former Alaskan governor is furtively schilling for Newt Gingrich, while cloaking it in the argument of keeping the vetting process going to strengthen the eventual Republican nominee.

After months of watching her frequent appearances as a Fox News Contributor, it is clear from her comments that she supports anyone in the race but Romney.

The weekend before the Florida primaries, Palin appealed to Florida GOP voters to cast a ballot for Gingrich, as his poll numbers have sharply declined in the past week. On Saturday Palin told Fox News host Judge Janine Piero: "...you’ve got to rage against the machine at this point in order to defend our republic and save what is good and secure and prosperous about our nation. We need somebody who is engaged in sudden and relentless reform and is not afraid to shake up the establishment. So, if for no other reason, rage against the machine, vote for Newt, annoy a liberal, vote Newt, keep this vetting process going, keep the debate going.”

A similar Palin plea two weeks earlier may have sparked a surprise victory for Gingrich in South Carolina. Palin is hoping her Tea Party appeal will again upset the primaries and keep Gingrich in the race.

Palin's support of Gingrich is contradictory: Palin often disparages the "inside-the-beltway status quo in Washington DC as being a big part of this country's problem yet Gingrich has been the consummate Washington insider for more than three decades (20 years in Congress and more than 10 years as a political consultant). 

Palin is free to endorse any candidate, yet she needs to be honest and not obfuscate her support by extolling the virtues of a prolonged primary.

Dawn's Digest

A compilation of compelling articles or commentaries worth reading.





In Romney's tax returns, details on Mormon tithe
Mitt Romney's tax return has come under intense scrutiny as it revealed he donated about 16 percent of his income to charity, with a large portion going to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This Associated Press article is well written, explaining tithes, fast offerings and other charitable donations in the LDS Church.
http://postbulletin.com/news/stories/display.php?id=1483614

A Brief Guide to "Mormon Underwear"
The unfortunate side of having a member of the LDS Church vie for the highest office in the land, is reading the vitriol and misinformation about Mormon practices and beliefs. One popular target are Mormon garments, a source of curiosity and/or ridicule by some who are not members of the LDS faith. The Mormon author of this post does an excellent job of explaining garments in a respectful manner. 
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/a-brief-guide-to-mormon-underwear

Understanding Mitt's Mormonism

Evangelical Christians and Mormons worship very differently. As many Romney's rivals publicly court the Christian vote, the LDS candidate's reserved approach to worship is more indicative of Mormon culture than devotion to faith. This post that I wrote was published on Yahoo Voices.
http://voices.yahoo.com/understanding-mitts-mormonism-10838211.html?cat=9

Christian Bigotry Claims Hollow

Christians quick to claim religious bigotry are ironically on the front lines of blatant anti-Mormon prejudice.

The long-running undercurrent of disdain and distrust for members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has moved out of the shadows as Mormon Gov. Mitt Romney seeks the GOP presidential nomination.

Republican voters openly opposing Romney's candidacy based on his Mormon faith, remain largely unchallenged in a country founded on religious tolerance and freedom. If the same voters discounted a candidate based on their Jewish or Catholic faith, it would be widely denounced by leaders in both political parties. However, when it comes to extending respect and tolerance to members of the LDS Church, there is deafening silence.

GOP candidates courting the Evangelical Christian vote likewise have failed to defend Romney's faith either because they agree with the anti-Mormon rhetoric or because they benefit from the prejudice.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry ran an advertisement in Iowa vowing that as president he would end President Obama's war on religion and would "fight against liberal attacks on our religious heritage."

Perry's commitment to defend religion apparently doesn't extend to Mormons since he refused to repudiate anti-Mormon comments made by his prominent Evangelical supporter who publicly accused the LDS Church of being a non-Christian cult.

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has also been vocal about prejudice towards Christians, saying last week in South Carolina that "there's a lot more anti-Christian bigotry today than there is concerning the other side (referring to gays) and none of it gets covered by the news media". The former Lutheran, turned Baptist, turned Catholic Gingrich has said nothing to challenge anti-Mormon bigotry during the campaign.

Mormons are accustomed to intolerance toward their faith. Not long after the LDS Church was founded in 1830, members were repeatedly driven from their communities to escape persecution. After the murder of their founder and prophet, Joseph Smith, Mormons fled to a barren desert (now known as Utah) where they could practice their faith unmolested. Despite Mormon conservative family values and high moral standards, many Evangelical Christians harbor skepticism of Mormon doctrine that differs from their own.

The theological differences between Mormons and other Christian religions have been explored recently in various articles, yet Romney detractors have failed to elucidate exactly why or how these disagreements over doctrine would compromise the judgment of a Mormon president.

The rallying cry to Christians to fight the war on religion rings hollow and hypocritical when those on the religious right actively promote anti-Mormonism or condone it through passive silence. If the GOP wants to be the legitimate party of championing religion in a growing secular society, then Republicans need to speak out about discrimination towards people of all faiths and not just their own.

Washington Needs To Be "Bained"

GOP presidential candidates all agree that Washington is broken and needs fixing.

The ballooning federal deficit, Congress' reckless spending and borrowing, and the bloated size of government are popular themes on the campaign trail.

The simple anecdote to what ails Washington is to employ the same business principles that former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney mastered at Bain Capital as a venture capitalist - ironically the very credentials under attack by two GOP rivals.

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and Texas Gov. Rick Perry have denounced Romney as an unscrupulous vulture who put profits ahead of people. As CEO of Bain Capital, Romney used investor funds to rescue struggling businesses and return them to profitability. When Romney was successful, about 70 percent of the time, jobs were preserved or created. When Romney was not successful,  jobs were lost.

Imagine if Romney "Bained" Washington, scrutinizing each federal department and agency and implementing practices to run the government simpler, smarter and smaller. When the benefits of an agency or department failed to justify the costs, it could be eliminated. Applying the Bain method to the federal government would result in the loss of many jobs, but would ultimately reduce the immense, expansive waste in Washington and return the fiscal responsibility needed to improve our struggling economy.

The country desperately needs Romney's skills at the helm so he can work his "Bain" magic and return the country to her former glory.

Huntsman's "Victory" Speech

GOP presidential candidate Jon Huntsman gave a jubilant victory speech last night after the New Hampshire primary returns were announced. The problem is, Huntsman didn't win - he came in a distant third.

The former Utah governor and ambassador to China told his supporters that his third place finish was a "ticket to ride", saying his campaign will continue to South Carolina. For a candidate who skipped the Iowa caucus and dumped all of his resources into the Granite State, garnering only 17% of the vote does not bode well for the campaign trains destination.

Any perceived success of Huntsman in New Hampshire is blunted by the fact that he hasn't been vetted: nationally Huntsman's support remains below a dismal 3% percent and no one perceives him as a threat. Other candidates have surged in the polls, then fallen after having their past scrutinized. To help Huntsman savor his "victory" in New Hampshire, we'll give the moderate Republican a brief vetting.

Huntsman likes to don a flannel shirt and jeans on the campaign trail to appeal to the masses, however, his folksy wardrobe does not obfuscate the fact that his privileged life as the son of a billionaire opened many doors leading to his success.

Huntsman's biography reads more like the tale of a spoiled rich kid rather than the pedigree of a United States president. As a teen, Huntsman dropped out of high school to pursue his rock band career. When that didn't pan out, he eventually got his GED and then obtained a BA in International Politics from the University of Pennsylvania. Upon graduating from college, Huntsman snagged several prime appointments in the Reagan and Bush Administrations - something cynics might argue had more to do with his father's success and money than Jon Jr's academic performance. Jon Huntsman, Sr, is a self-made chemical company titan who is highly regarded for his business acumen, integrity, work ethic and philanthropy. According to Jon Jr's campaign website, his only private sector experience was working for his father's companies (does nepotism come to mind?)

Huntsman, who is used to getting what he wants as a result of the birth lottery, is finding that voters aren't overly impressed with a guy who has built his career on his father's accomplishments. Perhaps it's time that Huntsman pursues his rock band ambitions and leaves the presidential race to the big boys.

Dawn's Digest

A compilation of compelling articles or commentaries worth reading.




Best Debate Moment of the Weekend
After the MSNBC Debate on Sunday morning, my head almost exploded watching Chris Mathews' post debate analysis as he slobbered over any perceived chink in Romney's armor. Just when I thought I'd have to change the channel, Romney supporter former New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu,  repeatedly spanked Mathews for his left wing agenda. It was a beautiful eight minutes. My dream is to get New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Sununu together on the stump with Romney.
http://www.therightscoop.com/former-gov-sununu-scolds-matthews-and-crew-on-air/


Huntsman's Dad Attempts Ringing Endorsement
The billionaire philanthropist was just trying to be a supportive dad, but when Jon Huntsman Sr was interviewed about his son's GOP presidential ambitions, his accolades were a bit paltry. Being an easy-going guy is not exactly one of the top characteristics most people look for in a president. Also, Huntsman Sr suggests that voters just need to get to know his son: if that is the case, why do voters in Utah, the state that Huntsman Jr governed for two terms, overwhelmingly support Mitt Romney?
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705393271/Jon-Huntsman-Sr-says-voters-just-need-to-get-to-know-his-son.html

Danger of GOP Primary Attacks

As GOP presidential hopefuls pummel each other in the primaries, many pundits claim that the damage done to the candidates only benefits President Obama's reelection efforts.

Unfair, mean-spirited and dishonest attacks on opponents certainly weaken the GOP, but not because the general election playbook is being written for the Democrats: the real damage to the eventual nominee is the alienation of his opponent's supporters - a block of voters that needs to coalesce behind the eventual nominee to defeat Obama in November.

Former Gov. Mike Huckabee offended some Republican voters in 2008 by his treatment of rival former Gov. Mitt Romney. During a New York Times interview the former Baptist preacher made a pejorative reference to Romney's Mormon faith - a not-so-subtle signal to evangelical Christians that they shouldn't support a Mormon candidate. Huckabee further insulted Romney supporters when he teamed up with John McCain in a back room deal to defeat Romney in West Virginia. After Romney later withdrew from the campaign, many of his supporters aligned themselves with the "anyone but Huckabee" candidate.

Understanding the candidates' positions on issues, defining differences and examining weaknesses are all vital in the primary process. If there are any stones left unturned in a candidate's personal or political portfolio, the Democrats will attack them with a vengence during the general election. It's best that issues are well flushed out during the primaries so they are old news during the contest with Obama.

During the long primary campaign, presidential hopefuls must be able to promote their candidacy without alienating their opponents' supporters. The candidate most successful in this balancing act has the best chance to ascend to the White House.

Dissecting Newt's Nosedive

There is a new Newt Gingrich in the GOP presidential race - which many say is merely the emergence of the old Newt.

After plunging in the polls and placing a distant fourth in the Iowa caucus, the candidate who once portrayed himself as the congenial elder statesman,has morphed into another Newt - one who is thin-skinned, vengeful and angry.

The sole target of Newt's rage is former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the well-funded candidate who has maintained steady support throughout the rise and fall of most of his rivals. When Gingrich suddenly ascended to the top of the polls, Romney and other candidates naturally shifted focus to the former speaker's record.

As Newt lost favor with voters, he lashed out at Romney, calling him a liar and blaming his fall in the polls on a blistering barrage of negative ads run by Romney's political action committee.

While Newt's frustration at seeing his presidential chances slip away is understandable, placing the blame squarely on Romney's shoulders is misguided. There were many factors that led to Newt's implosion:

• Simply put, Gingrich has tremendous personal and political baggage for someone seeking the highest political office in the country. In the campaign's early days, Gingrich was not a perceived threat and was able to impress voters with his debate performances without scrutiny of his past.
• When Gingrich suddenly surged in the polls, his opponents and the media resuscitated Newt's past performances. Many voters were not aware of Gingrich's background or had forgotten many of the details. It would have been surprising if Newt maintained his frontrunner's status after closer examination of his baggage.
• Many Republican colleagues who worked with Gingrich in Congress came out aggressively against his candidacy to be the GOP nominee.
• Gingrich concerned many voters when he proposed issuing Congressional subpoenas to federal judges to explain controversial rulings. Hearing a presidential candidate's plan to arbitrarily weaken the judicial branch of the government was chilling enough to dampen the enthusiasm of many voters.
• The former speaker has gone off message with other controversial comments about child janitors and the Palestinians being an invented people - reinforcing the concern about Newt's lack of self control.
• Gingrich failed to adequately explain his relationship with Freddie Mac, the mortgage giant that many blame on the failure of the housing market. Voters didn't buy that Freddie Mac would pay Gingrich $1.6 million simply for being a "historian".
• Gingrich attacked Romney's capitalistic background, a message that doesn't resonate with most Republicans. 

Gingrich has spent his life in politics and should understand that when a candidate is leading the polls, he becomes the natural target of his opponents. When someone like Gingrich with a messy personal history of infidelity as well as a reputation of being arrogant, divisive, undisciplined and incendiary among members of his own party, the vetting process will not be pleasant.

If Gingrich becomes unhinged during the primary battle, he evidently does not have the temperament to defeat Obama in the general election.

Newt Goes Negative

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich insisted for months he would run a positive campaign........until he discovered his strategy wasn't working.

After a stunning drop in the polls, Gingrich has characterized his attempts at a positive campaign as "an experiment" and called former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney a liar.

Hey now, that kind of sounds like a personal attack. It sounds like the type of politics that Gingrich has repeatedly denounced during the campaign. It sounds like Newt has gone negative.

Despite Gingrich's lip service to run a positive campaign, he has often attacked his opponents, later characterizing it as drawing distinctions between himself and the others. When others draw distinctions, Newt calls it negative campaigning. When he does it, it's simply illustrating how he differs from others.

Simply put, Newt's biggest opponent is Newt. He was delusional if he thought the past wouldn't come back to haunt him. Fortunately for the GOP, Gingrich's baggage has been opened and checked at the ticket counter during the primaries instead of at the gate during the general election.

Bachmann's Campaign Defection Spin

Five days before the Iowa caucus, a defection from Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann's inner circle has rocked the campaign trail.

The Iowa chairman of Bachmann's campaign, state Sen. Kent Sorenson, joined Congressman Ron Paul's campaign just hours after attending an event for Bachmann. The Minnesota congresswoman alleges that Sorenson sold out when Paul's campaign offered him "a lot" of money. Sorenson denies the charge, saying there was no offer of money. Paul's camp isn't talking.

In the wake of the defection, Bachmann's spin machine is in overdrive. In a Fox News interview on Thursday, the Congresswoman launched into a confusing monologue of tired talking points. Bachmann claimed she was so successful in the last debate when she took on Ron Paul, that her campaign has gained incredible momentum while Paul's campaign has stalled. As a result, she said that Paul lured Sorenson away with a large paycheck.

When Bachmann is in talking point mode, she doesn't let logic or the facts get in the way.

The polls all indicate that Paul, not Bachmann, will likely finish in the top three in the Iowa caucus. If the polls are somewhat reliable, Bachmann is deluding herself with imagined enthusiasm for her candidacy. If her campaign was truly surging, why would Sorenson leave a winner to hitch his wagon to a loser?

Undoubtedly, the Iowa state senator has no integrity. To spend months working side-by-side other Bachmann supporters only to embarrass the candidate by a surprise endorsement of her rival just five days before the caucus, clearly demonstrates that Sorenson is sleazy, even by political standards.

Spin is often used in political campaigns to cast a candidate in a more favorable light. When poorly executed, spin makes the candidate appear like an inexperienced adolescent running for student council president.

Bachmann would be better served by letting the facts speak for themselves rather than spin them into a transparent fantasy.

Newt and Negative Ads

Negative ads work. Just ask Newt Gingrich.

A month ago after surging in the polls, the former House Speaker presumptuously proclaimed himself the Republican nominee. A few million dollars worth of negative ads later, his campaign is sinking like a stone.

As the Iowa caucus looms, Gingrich's campaign message has become lost in a sea of Newt soundbites denouncing his rivals' use of negative ads. While he roleplays the elder statesman who religiously follows Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment of not attacking fellow Republicans, the truth is, Gingrich knew going into the campaign that his personal and political life couldn't stand up to scrutiny. Gingrich's noble statesman-like persona is merely a hollow self-preservation tactic.

Gingrich's popularity soared after turning in several good debate performances. As soon as front-runner status was obtained, the spotlight was turned on Newt and numerous issues were illuminated that turned off voters.

Voters need negative ads to help filter through numerous candidates. While it's important to understand what a candidate says during a campaign, it's also imperative to understand what a candidate doesn't say. As long as the information is accurate and not intentionally misleading, political opponents can be a good source of information to help voters evaluate the viability of a candidate.

Gingrich's personal life, his political reputation with his peers, his controversial positions on issues, his infamous temper and ego and his questionable activities in the private sector are all relevant in evaluating whether Newt should be president.

If Gingrich can't handle the scrutiny of the primaries, he has no business being the GOP nominee to run against Barack Obama in the general election. 

The Virginia Whine

Virginia's requirements to get on the state's primary ballot are really, really, really hard and some GOP candidates say it's just not fair. Waaaaaa!

Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich tried, but failed, to get the required 10,000 signatures to list their names on Virginia's primary ballot. Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann, Sen. Rick Santorum and former ambassador to China, Jon Huntsman didn't even try.

Perry says the cumbersome Virginia requirements are unconstitutional and he has filed a lawsuit in federal court to compel the state's Republican party and board of elections to certify him on the primary ballot. Apparently the Texas cowboy who champions state's rights thinks it's okay to undermine state sovereignty when it compensates for his inept campaign.

Do Republicans really want to nominate someone who is unable to perform the necessary requirements to have their names listed on a state's ballot? The whole "voting" thing is a pretty important part of a campaign - someone who believes they are qualified to be president should be able to get that part right without requesting federal government intervention.

The primaries are a time of testing candidates to evaluate who is most capable to defeat Barack Obama and become president of the United States. The job of president is grueling and stressful.

Whiners need not apply.

Dawn's Weekly Digest

A compilation of compelling articles or commentaries worth reading. 






Absolution for Newt - How Evangelicals are Finding a Way to Support Gingrich
This article explores the "evangelical tri-lemma" - do voters support a Mormon with one wife, a Catholic with three or an evangelical that may have had a harem?
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2011/12/newt_gingrich_and_evangelicals_they_could_never_support_him_right_wrong_.html

If Gingrich is the Answer, the Tea Party has Failed
This article looks at the improbable support Gingrich has gained from the many in the Tea Party, given the fact that the grass roots movement sprung from dissatisfied citizens who wanted to vote the establishment out of Washington.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2011/12/01/gingrich-answer-tea-party-has-failed/kzwmWew9EqZxiIFXEWNmZM/story.html

Latter-day Sins - Why don't we challenge anti-Mormonism? Because it's the prejudice of our age
An insightful article that validates what many Latter-day Saints feel during the GOP primaries.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2011/10/mitt_romney_s_mormon_cult_controversy_anti_mormonism_is_the_prej.html

Can the "New Newt" Shed  Past Baggage?
Less than conservative stances on cap and trade, global warming, his marriages, religion and abortion may come back to haunt Gingrich as he positions himself as the best hope for the GOP.
http://news.yahoo.com/newt-shed-past-baggage-110109595.html

Romney, an Active Man of Faith
Excellent article on Romney's leadership callings in the LDS Church.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/07/nation/la-na-romney-faith-20111208

The GOP's Moderate Mormons: Huntsman and Romney practice pragmatism
Enlightening article explaining why Mormons usually don't publicly crusade for conservative causes
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-07-03/news/29749438_1_mormons-and-non-mormons-mormon-candidates-civil-unions

A Closer Look at the LDS (Mormon) Church

For a church that is politically neutral, ironically The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints could be a major factor in determining which candidate gets the nod to represent the GOP in the 2012 presidential election.

Gov. Mitt Romney's poll numbers indicate he would be a formidable Republican candidate to unseat incumbent president Barack Obama. However, the large Evangelical Christian constituency in the GOP may derail Romney's campaign due to his life-long membership in the LDS Church. Many prominent Evangelical leaders have not been shy in their anti-Mormon rhetoric, admonishing followers to oppose a Mormon candidate.

Since Romney's religion could prevent him from securing the party's nomination, a closer look at the LDS Church is warranted. Doctrinal differences between the LDS Church and Evangelical Christians are discussed previously ("Mormons - a Non-Christian Cult?"), therefore the focus of post will be on LDS history, values and programs.

Background
The LDS Church has rapidly grown to more than 14 million members worldwide since it was founded in 1830. Early Church members were forced to move frequently to escape persecution, fleeing New York, Ohio, Missouri and Illinois before finally finding sanctuary west of the Rockies in the Salt Lake Valley. While Mormons flourished in their new home, evidence of bigotry that early pioneers escaped remained for 137 years: an extermination order issued by the Missouri governor in 1838 that authorized the state militia to kill Mormons, was not rescinded until 1976.

In addition to settling Utah, Mormons are often known for their traditional family values, adherence to a strict code of moral conduct, abstinence from alcohol, tobacco and other addictive substances and a large world-wide missionary effort.

Although the vast majority of LDS people affiliate themselves with the Republican Party, the Church itself is non-partisan and only publicly comments on moral issues.

Church Leadership/Organization
The LDS Church is led by a prophet, Thomas S. Monson, his two counselors and a quorum of 12 apostles. There are also Quorums of the Seventies, which are church elders who are called to oversee members in specific regions of the world. A modest living stipend is paid to this governing body who work full time to run the Church's world-wide affairs.

Local congregations in the LDS Church (called "wards") are headed by lay ministers (called bishops). All positions in the ward are staffed by volunteer members on a short-term basis, giving ward members opportunities to serve in numerous capacities. The bishop of the ward reports to a stake president, who presides over an average of eight wards in a geographical area. The stake president reports to a member of the Quorum of the Seventies, who then reports to the First Presidency of the Church.

Local leadership positions are not compensated in any way.

Families
Families are of preeminent importance in the LDS religion. In 1995 the First Presidency of the Church issued a document called, "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. It states that the family unit is central to the Creator's plan and that we are all spirit children of our Heavenly Father with a divine nature and destiny.The church and its members strive to strengthen families, encouraging individual responsibility and accountability at home. Members are also encouraged to set aside Monday evenings to spend with their family. In addition, families are instructed to pray and read scriptures together daily.

Missionary Work
There are currently 52,000 missionaries serving in 350 missions around the world. Young men between the ages of 19-25 are strongly urged to serve a two-year mission - postponing school, work and relationships. Young women and seniors are also invited to serve missions. Most missions are paid entirely by the missionary and his/her family. High morality standards and a rigorous schedule of proselytizing and service must be maintained by all missionaries.

Self-reliance
The LDS Church teaches its members to avoid debt and become self-reliant. Personal preparedness is urged to help members weather difficulties such as natural disasters or unemployment. Preparedness includes emergency 72-hour packs for each family member, a one-year food and water supply and financial reserves. In addition, acquiring skills such as gardening, canning and sewing are encouraged.

Welfare
For individuals experiencing hardships, the Church Welfare System provides short-term assistance with basic needs. Money for this program is obtained through monthly voluntary contributions of members called fast offerings, which stay with local units to provide for others in their congregation. The Church also operates canning facilities and storehouses throughout the world.

Humanitarian Aid
The Mormon Church has donated more than $1 billion in cash and material assistance to 167 different countries in need of humanitarian aid since it started keeping track in 1985. The Church's organizational structure allows for quick and efficient distribution of relief supplies such as food, water, sanitation's kits and medications to people around the world. The Church offers aid to people regardless of their religion, ethnicity or nationality and it covers administrative costs so that 100 percent of donations go directly to help the needy.

Finances
Much of the LDS Church's income is derived through tithes and fast offerings. Many members of the Church voluntarily contribute 10 percent of their income to be used by church officials to run the affairs of the church world wide. In addition, once a month members are encouraged to fast for 24 hours and donate the money they would have spent on meals to a fast offering fund, which is used by local church leaders to care for the poor and needy in their congregations. Separate donations can be made to humanitarian aid, the perpetual education fund and the missionary program.Tithing and fast offerings collected are devoted to ecclesiastical purposes and not used in for-profit ventures. The church is audited by an independent accounting firm and an independent audit department which certifies at a semi-annual world-wide conference that church funds are being spent according to church policy.

Education:
Mormons historically have shown a high regard for education - both in a formal setting and on a personal level. The LDS faith believes that whatever intelligence is gained in this lifetime will rise with individuals in the afterlife. The Church owns and operates three universities: Brigham Young University (located in Provo, Utah), BYU-Hawaii and BYU-Idaho. Members' tuition is subsidized by the Church, making it far more affordable than comparable universities.

In addition to secular educations, the LDS Church also provides religious education. Seminary is a four-year program for high-school students that is usually attended each morning before school begins - either in the local church building or in a member's home. An online version is available for those who may not have access to a local seminary group. Approximately 350,000 students participate in Seminary worldwide.

Institute is a religious educational program for people between the ages of 18 and 30 at more than 2,500 locations worldwide. There are currently 350,000 students enrolled in institute.

The Perpetual Educational Fund was established in 2001 to help young adults in developing areas of the world access educational opportunities to improve their economic conditions. The fund has helped more than 46,000 people.


For more information on the LDS Church, go to http://mormon.org/

Romney's Glass Ceiling

This is the first of a three-part series designed to explore how Mitt Romney's Mormon faith might affect his candidacy for the Republican nomination and how he might govern the country as president.

Despite consistent poll numbers positioning former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney a front runner in the GOP presidential race, there seems to be a glass ceiling  preventing him from rising in the polls. Political pundits have coined the term "the anti-Romney candidate" to describe the dissatisfaction of the electorate with Romney and their desire to find an alternative candidate .

On paper Romney has the credentials to unseat incumbent president, Barack Obama; he has extensive business experience to tackle the nation's anemic economy, he has both private and public CEO experience to successfully govern the country, poll numbers indicate he could defeat Obama in a head-to-head match up, he has arguably the best organized ground support in the early primary states, he has a  formidable campaign war chest and the ability to fund raise and Romney possesses a quality that can't be acquired - he looks and acts "presidential".

Despite Romney's resume, his campaign lacks momentum to propel him ahead of the pack. Some political commentators attribute the electorate's lack of enthusiasm for Romney to his more moderate, sometimes changing positions. While this may account for some reservations about the former governor, there is an unspoken anchor weighing down Romney's candidacy: his membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Criticizing a political rival's religion is unpopular in a country founded on religious freedom and tolerance. Texas Gov. Rick Perry discovered this shortly after entering the GOP presidential race when he failed to repudiate a prominent supporter's anti-Mormon comments. While there is limited discussion in the public arena regarding Romney's faith, there is vociferous opposition to a LDS candidate in the evangelical Christian online community and congregations. Since 40 percent of the GOP electorate identify themselves as evangelical Christians, the negative narrative about Romney's faith must be considered when analyzing Romney's campaign.

An experience my father had 18 years ago helps elucidate Romney's formidable glass ceiling. When living in a Nashville, Tenn. suburb, my father was appointed to a leadership position in the LDS Church. As part of his responsibilities, he was asked to participate in an interfaith council made up of local clergy. After my father's first meeting, representatives from the Baptist and Congregational churches refused to participate on the council if the LDS Church - which they deemed was not Christian - was represented . As a convert to the LDS Church,  my dad had never encountered such animosity towards his faith and was surprised that only his presence was objected to since there were also religious leaders from the Islamic, Sikh, and Jewish faiths on the council.

While this story is anecdotal, it illustrates the deep disdain many evangelical Christians feel towards members of the LDS faith. One prominent evangelical author, Warren Cole Smith, argued in a May 2011 article that Romney's faith disqualified him from being president. "I believe a candidate who either by intent or effect promotes a false and dangerous religion is unfit to serve..... A Romney presidency would have the effect of actively promoting a false religion in the world. If you have any regard for the Gospel of Christ, you should care. A false religion should not prosper with the support of Christians. The salvation of souls is at stake," he wrote.

If it's true that the salvation of souls hinges on the outcome of Romney's 2012 presidential campaign, then certainly a closer look at the LDS Church is warranted.

The second part of this series will analyze various aspects of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Occupy Protesters and Lemonade

Children selling lemonade apparently poses a bigger threat to communities than liberal activists protesters.

Local officials are finally cracking down on Occupy encampments across the nation after allowing protesters to set up make-shift campgrounds for almost two months, disrupting traffic and commerce, and creating a sanitation and health crisis. By permitting protesters to "occupy" city parks with little interference, the encampments have become ground zero for crime and violence including shootings, rapes, assault, battery and drug use.

While authorities have been slow to respond to Occupy protesters, they quickly snuffed out rogue lemonade stands that popped up during the summer for violating local regulations and ordinances. For decades children have gained their first business experience running lemonade stands in their neighborhoods. A portable table, a simple sign, paper cups and a pitcher of lemonade is all that was needed for kids to earn extra money on a sultry summer day.

But there is a growing trend of local officials cracking down on this innocent childhood past time for failing to obtain business, health and vending permits. In virtually every case, the cost of permits would greatly exceed any revenue brought in. For a map showing examples of the war on lemonade stands, click here.

If lemonade stands warrant being shut down, why have authorities tolerated the Occupy invasions? Do lemonade stands violate more local laws that Occupy encampments? Are economic repercussions greater for businesses located by a lemonade stand or located by an Occupy protests? How do safety and health risks for lemonade stand patrons compare to risks for Occupy protesters? Is selling lemonade less respectable than beating up war veterans and defecating on police cars?

It's ludicrous to enforce regulations to discourage productivity while ignoring regulations that encourage unproductivity. Why penalize kids who want to make money while coddling Occupy protesters who want to take money?

The Occupy Movement has expanded to more than 100 cities across the country despite having a nebulous charter and demands. On Occupywallst.org it says the movement "aims to expose how the richest 1% of people are writing the rules of an unfair global economy that is foreclosing on our future." Basically, Occupy protesters feel entitled to the same standard of living their parents earned through hard work and sacrifice.

Instead of blaming others' success for their plight, perhaps Occupy protesters should adopt the entrepreneurial spirit of kids who sell lemonade and use capitalism to create their own American dream. Just don't forget to obtain the proper permits.

Sorry, Israel

Once again  I feel the need to apologize to Israel for the behavior of our president.

President Barack Obama and French President Nicholas Sarkozy were caught making disparaging comments about their Israeli counterpart, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, at the G-20 Summit last week in Cannes.

The two leaders were unaware their conversation could be overheard by journalists. In the exchange, Sarkozy said,  "I can't stand Netanyahu. He's a liar."

Obama responded,  "You're fed up with him, but I have to work with him every day."

In addition to showing stupidity by talking near an open microphone, Obama also signaled to the Arab world that there are cracks in the US-Israeli relationship.

This isn't the first time I've been ashamed of Obama's treatment of Israel, our closest ally. Obama openly criticized Israel for complicating the peace process by settlement building activity. The president also said that any Middle East peace agreement should be based on the pre-1967 borders - borders that Netanyahu insists are indefensible.

Israel is accustomed to defending itself from attacks by neighboring Arab countries who wish to exterminate the Jewish homeland. While the Israelis are more than capable fighters, they shouldn't have to question the loyalty of their biggest ally.

Forgiving Student Loan Debt

The concept of personal responsibility is conspicuously absent from the debate on student loans forgiveness.

Many college graduates smothered by student loan debt are struggling to make payments due to unemployment, being under employed or simply having accrued too much debt.


Proponents of student loan forgiveness blame Congress for creating an environment of predatory lending by removing standard consumer protections and sanctioning unusually powerful collection tactics. When Congressional failure is combine with other systemic problems such as a high default rate, a poor quality of education, poor loan administration and system wide corruption, proponents say that students are the victims of a scam and deserve to have their debt forgiven.

Regardless of perceived failures by Congress or the student loan system, personal responsibility and accountability must have a place in the student loan debate. Student loans are not forced on students - the loans are choices. It is often a series of decisions that determine the price tag of a college education and how many loans will be needed to cover expenses. Students are free to choose which school to attend, whether to live at home or on campus, what degree to obtain and whether to work while attending college. They can also choose to excel academically or athletically and obtain scholarships or they can choose to enlist in the military to be eligible for education benefits.

Loan forgiveness for debts incurred through personal decisions would teach an entire generation that it's not responsible for its choices. College was once viewed as an opportunity to improve earning capability and people would sacrifice a great deal to obtain a degree. Now college is often seen as a place for young adults to "find" themselves and there is a casual disregard for the accruing tab.

Students want bailouts. Corporations want bailouts. Homeowners want bailouts. Perhaps taxpayers should get a bailout from funding poor decisions.









     

One Word for Jesse Ventura

Former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura announced that he may seek citizenship in Mexico to protest the dismissal of his lawsuit against the TSA. Calling the U.S. the "Fascist States of America," Ventura vowed to turn his back and raise his fist when the national anthem is played. He had filed suit for unreasonable search and seizure after receiving an airport pat down by the TSA.

I have one word for Ventura: ADIOS!  

Cain's Crisis Mismanagement

For a candidate running on his business acumen, Herman Cain failed to showcase his CEO skills in managing his campaign's first crisis. 

Cain's meteoric rise to front-runner status was tempered earlier this week when allegations surfaced about a settlement made 12 years ago to two women who accused Cain of sexual harassment.

The allegations, which Cain has categorically denied, were published by Politico on Sunday evening and have dominated the news cycle all week. Despite negative press, contributions to Cain's campaign actually increased the day after the story broke, illustrating that support for the former businessman has not waned in wake of the controversy. Cain and many of his supporters believe he is the target of opponents who want to derail his campaign.

Although he may retain support for now, Cain's candidacy has suffered a serious body blow: the evolving and inconsistent details of Cain's story illustrates how unprepared the Cain camp is to challenge President Obama's reelection machine. The longer Cain is unable to contain this crisis of unsubstantiated and anonymous allegations, the more time he spends looking unqualified for the very office he seeks.

Cain proudly defines himself as an unconventional candidate running an unconventional campaign. If he wants to remain a serious contender, Cain needs to embrace the conventional wisdom of  how to successfully survive a political crisis.

Republican Debate Analysis

After the Republican presidential debate Tuesday night in Las Vegas, I have yet to read or hear an astute analysis of the debate I watched. So here are my two cents on how the candidates fared:

Michelle Bachman: The Congresswoman from Minnesota had a good night overall, but at times looked like a school girl in the back of the class trying to get the teacher's attention. As other candidates slugged it out, Bachman could be heard shouting off camera, "Anderson! Anderson!" to signal CNN moderator Anderson Cooper that she wanted to add something to the debate. When asked directly about Herman Cain's "9-9-9" plan, Bachman expressed concern about opening up a new source of tax revenue for the federal government. She made an impassioned plea to moms who are in danger of losing their houses to foreclosure to "hang on," but offered no solutions.

Herman Cain: After a string of strong debate performances and a huge surge in the polls, the successful businessman didn't look as confident as his economic plan "9-9-9" was shredded by the other candidates. Cain answered his opponents' criticisms by telling them they didn't understand his plan. He also countered that his critics were comparing apples to oranges, although the fruit analogy did nothing to clarify his economic plan. Cain challenged the American people to read the plan on his website and "do the math yourself," which sounded ridiculous after chiding his opponents (two successful CEOs, a senator, two Congressmen, a governor and a former Speaker of the House) for not understanding the plan. Cain didn't project the same self-assuredness as in previous debates, although he remained statesmanlike.

Newt Gingrich: The former Speaker of the House assumed his usual debate role as the father-figure who tried to minimize squabbles between candidates while trying to focus the discussion on President Obama's failures. Gingrich, who still lags far behind in the polls, did get into one uncharacteristic tussle when he criticized Romney's Massachusetts health care plan and Romney responded that he got the idea of an individual mandate from Gingrich himself. The former Speaker lashed back saying that Romney was not telling the truth, but sheepishly backed down when Romney pointed out that Gingrich and the Heritage Foundation were supportive of individual mandates when Hillary Clinton was trying to pass national health care. Gingrich's solid performances in the debates should make him a top-tier contender, but his campaign is not gaining much steam.

Jon Huntsman: The former governor of Utah and former ambassador to China boycotted the debate in Las Vegas to protest Nevada moving their caucuses to an earlier date, something that has angered Republicans in New Hampshire. Huntsman, who said he wanted to show solidarity with the people in the Granite State, was not missed in last night's debate and his boycot was meaningless.

Gary Johnson: The former New Mexican governor was not invited to the debate due to poll numbers that don't register on the Richter Scale.

Ron Paul:  The Congressman from Texas turned in his usual debate performance - making sense on some issues and sounding like "the crazy uncle at the family reunion" on most others. Paul's position on the issues has been consistant through the years,

Mitt Romney: The businessman and former governor from Massachusetts took blows from nearly every candidate during the debate, but was able to effectively counter punch and turned in a decent performance to retain his top-tier status in the polls. Romney was unusually aggressive in responding to attacks, and may have tarnished the image of being unflappable and presidential when he became exasperated with Perry and Santorum for interrupting him. During his acrimonious exchanges with Perry, the crowd clearly favored Romney, as they hissed and booed his opponent's anemic attacks.

Rick Perry: While some pundits have characterized the Texas governor's debate performance as "energetic" and "lively", Perry behaved more like a petulant child in a desperate attempt to regain his top-contender status. Perry came to the debate armed with rehearsed attacks on rival Mitt Romney, but when given the opportunity by the moderator to evaluate Romney's economic plan, he dodged the question and changed the subject to energy independance. This wasn't the only time that Perry wouldn't, or couldn't, answer the question directed at him. When asked about his position on the 14th amendment, which confers immediate citizenship on any child born on US soil, Perry ignored the question and instead added his opinion on a subject that had been previously discussed. Perry's personal attacks on Romney led to some fiery exchanges between the two rivals, but fell flat as Romney effectively countered each charge. Despite being more energetic, the Texas governor failed to provide his economic plan and did not show any depth on international issues.

Rick Santorum:  The Senator from Pennsylvania challenged Romney, Cain and Perry, but may have undermined any progress he made during the debate when he began shouting, "Times up! Times up! Times up!" during one of Romney's responses. The image of Santorum trying to muzzle his opponent by getting the moderator to intervene was reminiscent of a playground tactic and not one befitting a presidential candidate.

Mormons - a Non-Christian Cult?

A four-letter word has once again entered the GOP presidential race: CULT.

Just when the debate was focusing on issues such as the economy, unemployment and taxes, the race took an unfortunate, yet predictable detour, when a prominent evangelical pastor reiterated his claim that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) is a non-Christian cult.

Salt Lake LDS Temple


In an attempt to undermine GOP front runner Mitt Romney, who is a member of the LDS Church, mega-church pastor Rick Jeffrees reiterated previous attacks on Mormons at a Values Voter Summit in Washington DC last Friday. "That is a mainstream view, that Mormonism is a cult. Every true, born again follower of Christ ought to embrace a Christian over a non-Christian.” Jeffrees has endorsed the candidacy of Texas Governor Rick Perry, a Methodist who attends an evangelical mega-church in Austin. 

Later, when explaining his controversial position, Jeffrees told MSNBC on Monday that the LDS Church is a "theological" cult and not a "sociological" cult like the one responsible for the Jonestown massacre (where more than 900 adherents committed mass suicide by drinking kool aid laced with cyanide.)

Despite Jeffrees feeble attempt to mitigate his fiery rhetoric, the image of a fanatical religious group was exactly what he was trying to invoke when he used the word "cult" to describe the LDS faith, which now has more than 14 million members world wide. According to the Religious Tolerance website, "...if you are an author, public speaker or teleminister who wants to direct public fear and hatred against a new religious group, then "cult" is an ideal word to use. But the use of the term may be irresponsible and immoral, depending upon your system of values."

The website further argues that the term "cult" is intentionally used for manipulative purposes - to capitalize on the fear and disdain of dangerous faith groups such as Heaven's Gate or the Branch Davidians and hopefully transfer those negative feelings to such denominations as the LDS Church. http://www.religioustolerance.org/cults.htm

As for the redundant debate about whether Mormons are Christians, it seems that a small band of evangelical leaders dominate the narrative defining Christianity. A simple definition of Christianity is one who is a disciple of Christ. Yet some Protestant Christian denominations have a checklist of cardinal Christian doctrines which in their opinion define who is Christian and who is not.

While followers of the LDS Church believe that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world who atoned for our sins, Mormons believe that God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are three distinct personages, united in one purpose, which deviates from the mainstream idea that the Holy Trinity is one being.

An apostle for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, affirmed that Mormons are Christian and discussed the controversy in a bi-annual conference address in October 2007. He referred to Harper's Bible Dictionary when stating that “the formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the [New Testament].”

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland

Elder Holland said: "So any criticism that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not hold the contemporary Christian view of God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost is not a comment about our commitment to Christ but rather a recognition (accurate, I might add) that our view of the Godhead breaks with post–New Testament Christian history and returns to the doctrine taught by Jesus Himself." (To read Elder Holland's entire remarks go to: http://lds.org/general-conference/2007/10/the-only-true-god-and-jesus-christ-whom-he-hath-sent?lang=eng&query=true+(name%3a"Jeffrey+R.+Holland")

Whether Mitt Romney and his fellow Mormons are truly Christians is ultimately only for Christ to decide. As for Reverend Jeffrees, his attacks on the LDS faith is a transparent attempt to bolster Rick Perry's flagging presidential campaign by demonizing Mitt Romney's faith.

The GOP candidates need to focus on another four-letter word to win the presidential election: JOBS.

Jobs Bill - Just Say No

As President Obama's jobs bill languishes in Congressional abyss, I joined the growing ranks of unemployed Americans whose jobless benefits have been exhausted, leaving my family unable to meet basic financial obligations.

Obama delivered an impassioned plea to a joint session of Congress last month, repeating the mantra, "pass this bill," which includes a one-year extension of unemployment benefits for millions of Americans who remain out of work. As someone who has benefitted from the relief this bill would provide, I echo the slogan from former First Lady Nancy Reagan's 1980s anti-drug campaign, and implore the Legislative Branch to "Just Say No."

Since being laid off from a pharmaceutical sales position in December 2009, my family has struggled as our household income was cut by more than 60%. Unemployment benefits only restored a portion of my lost income - enough to barely get by, but not enough to restore the dignity of working and the hope of providing a better life for my children. Like an insidious drug, extended unemployment benefits have become the new entitlement program for the working class and have created a culture of dependency. While jobless benefits may get people by for another week, they are counterproductive to self reliance and long-term prosperity.

Our society is crippled by government entitlement programs. Generations are addicted to "free money" that is actually not free, but being paid by Americans who get out of bed every morning and go to work. Programs that may have been conceived with noble intentions to help the poor and disabled, have become shackles to millions of able-bodied Americans who are now enslaved to the federal government, robbing them of dignity and hope. 

What our country needs is an economic climate that will encourage businesses to create jobs and hire employees. Fewer government regulations and more incentives for businesses to expand will help restore the jobless working class to productivity.

"Free money" is like a drug - the more you are given, the more dependant you become. One more injection of heroin, or one more alcoholic binge will not liberate the addict. As the federal government's tentacles gently caress the unemployed with the seductive lure of more jobless benefits, we need to shake off the shackles of dependency, "Just Say No," and check in to a good rehab clinic.

Paying a "Fair" Tax

Progressive liberals have it right on this: the richest Americans should pay their fair share of taxes.

Proponents of a fair tax suggest that an equitable tax system should be commensurate with a person's ability to pay and that people should be taxed on accumulated wealth rather than rely on income to provide tax revenue. Closing loopholes for wealthy individuals and corporations will prevent them from hiding their wealth, according to fair tax proponents.

The rich should pay their fair share. But what the progressive liberals forget is that ALL citizens should pay their fair share. According to the US Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 46% of Americans do not pay any federal income tax because their income is too low or they can claim enough tax credits or deductions to eliminate their tax liability.

Federal taxes pay for defense, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, Education and Transportation. Is it "fair" for the top 10% of wage earners to pay for 70% of these services?

When nearly half of the country does not pay federal income tax, there is an inherent danger of people voting for a larger, bloated government that promises more entitlements for them and higher taxes for someone else. Citizens who actually pay federal income tax are more likely to hold Congress accountable for how that money is spent. When all citizens do not have a common vested interest in paying for our national defense, entitlement programs, education and transportation, we become a divided nation forcing hardworking, successful people to provide for the rest.

As a nation we should want to care for the weakest and most vulnerable members of our society who have fallen on difficult times through no fault of their own. However, there are far too many people living on entitlements who choose not to work, obtain higher education or establish a nurturing family unit to raise well-adjusted children. Current entitlement programs encourage laziness, drug and alcohol abuse and having multiple children out of wedlock. This generational lifestyle should not be subsidized by punishing the most productive members of society.

In order to have a fair tax, all citizens should pay the same tax rate and loopholes and deductions should be eliminated for both the wealthy and the poor: owning a home, having a child, investing in one's business or making charitable contributions should not decrease taxable income.

The fair tax system being pushed by liberals is a thinly disguised attempt to transfer wealth and there is nothing fair about that.

The Environmental Agenda in Schools

In the early 1970s, children were reminded by Woodsy Owl to: "Give a Hoot, Don't Pollute." The effective anti-littering campaign caused guilt in an entire generation of children when a foil gum wrapper was carelessly dropped on the ground. 

Littering is bad. I think most Americans can get behind that idea and agree that they don't want polluted water in their taps and toxic waste dumps in their backyards. 

At some point though, the environment was hijacked by left-wing nut jobs who place more value on a tree than on human life. As a result, even sensible ideas to protect the earth and its citizens come under intense scrutiny by skeptics and conservatives are branded as greedy, corporate-loving consumers who don't care about destroying the planet. 

Marching the liberal political agenda into public classrooms has only polarized the right and left on environmental issues. "The Story of Stuff" is an animated, self-described documentary funded by the Tides Foundation, a left-wing environmental group. This anti-American, anti-capitalist "documentary" is presented as scientific fact to impressionable children and trumpets the liberal narrative that greedy American corporations are stealing resources from third world countries and trashing the entire planet in the process. The opinions expressed in this "documentary" are often backed up by erroneous or misleading facts and have no place in our schools. (To read a transcript of The Story of Stuff go to: http://www.storyofstuff.com/pdfs/annie_leonard_footnoted_script.pdf

This is not the first time liberal environmentalists have infiltrated the educational system to indoctrinate youth and present opinion as science. The 2006 "documentary" An Inconvenient Truth about former Vice President Al Gore's global warming campaign, has been included in science curricula in schools around the world. In 2007 a group of global warming skeptics in Great Britain sued the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to prevent the screening of the film in English schools, which are legally forbidden to promote partisan political views. The judge eventually ruled that the film could be shown, but only when accompanied by an explanation of its numerous scientific errors.

Indoctrinating youth with questionable science to promote the environmental agenda has no place in our schools. "The Story of Stuff" needs to be tossed in the landfill and the Woodsy Owl campaign should be recycled.

Dividing the Mormon Vote

Now that a second Mormon has entered the 2012 presidential race, the question has been raised whether Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman, Jr will split the Mormon vote.


The premise of that question assumes that members from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) would cast a vote solely based on a candidate's religion. The notion that Mormons would automatically vote for another Mormon candidate is just as insulting as the 22% of people in a Wall Street Journal poll who would not vote for a LDS candidate based solely on his faith.


While most members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints identify themselves as Republicans (Utah is the reddest state in the union), the truth is, Romney and Huntsman may not be conservative enough for many members of the LDS faith. Furthermore, like other religions, Mormons vary greatly in their political ideology - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, an ally of President Obama and a member of the LDS Church, is an example of how wide the political spectrum can be among members of the same faith.


As a member of the LDS Church, it would be wonderful to see a Mormon candidate overcome years of religious intolerance and persecution and ascend to the highest office in the country. However, I want the candidate to win or lose the election based on the issues and character - not his Mormon faith.